MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792988776 · doi:10.1177/0008125617752693

Orchestrating Circularity within Industrial Ecosystems: Lessons from Iconic Cases in Three Different Countries

2018· article· en· W2792988776 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCalifornia Management Review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSustainable Industrial Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgence Nationale de la RechercheUniversité de Lille
KeywordsIndustrial ecologyEcologyValue (mathematics)BusinessSociologySustainabilityComputer scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores how to get companies engaged in value-creating cooperation regarding residual materials. Within different contexts, industrial ecology needs matchmakers who act as network orchestrators to facilitate new forms of interorganizational cooperation on what were previously perceived as “junk materials.” Three case studies of eco-industrial networks in Denmark (Kalundborg), Canada (the Québec region), and France (Dunkirk) demonstrate the various roles of the matchmakers to ensure the implementation of industrial ecology at the interorganizational level. This article highlights four strategic activities for matchmakers: revealing value in industrial ecology, generating trust, activating industrial ecology, and institutionalizing industrial ecology.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.784
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it