MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801991785 · doi:10.1515/reveh-2018-0014

Prevention-intervention strategies to reduce exposure to e-waste

2018· review· en· W2801991785 on OpenAlexaff
Michelle Heacock, Brittany A. Trottier, Sharad Adhikary, Kwadwo Ansong Asante, Niladri Basu, Marie-Noel Bruné, Jack Caravanos, David O. Carpenter, Danielle Cazabon, Paromita Chakraborty, Aimin Chen, Fernando Díaz‐Barriga, Bret Ericson, Julius N. Fobil, Budi Haryanto, Xia Huo, Tushar Kant Joshi, Philip J. Landrigan, Adeline R. Lopez, Frederico Magalini, Panida Navasumrit, Antonio Pascale, Sankar Sambandam, Upik Sitti Aslia Kamil, Leith Sly, Peter D. Sly, Ann Suk, Inoka Suraweera, Ridwan Tamin, E. Dello Vicario, William A. Suk

Bibliographic record

VenueReviews on Environmental Health · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRecycling and Waste Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHazardous wasteWaste managementElectronic wasteIntervention (counseling)BusinessHousehold hazardous wasteElectronic equipmentMunicipal solid wasteEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental healthWaste collectionEngineeringMedicineMobile incinerator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As one of the largest waste streams, electronic waste (e-waste) production continues to grow in response to global demand for consumer electronics. This waste is often shipped to developing countries where it is disassembled and recycled. In many cases, e-waste recycling activities are conducted in informal settings with very few controls or protections in place for workers. These activities involve exposure to hazardous substances such as cadmium, lead, and brominated flame retardants and are frequently performed by women and children. Although recycling practices and exposures vary by scale and geographic region, we present case studies of e-waste recycling scenarios and intervention approaches to reduce or prevent exposures to the hazardous substances in e-waste that may be broadly applicable to diverse situations. Drawing on parallels identified in these cases, we discuss the future prevention and intervention strategies that recognize the difficult economic realities of informal e-waste recycling.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.325 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations63
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReviews on Environmental HealthSame topicRecycling and Waste Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207