MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900306571 · doi:10.1680/jenes.18.00043

Briefing: Landfill mining for energy recovery in tropical developing countries

2018· article· en· W2900306571 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sandro Lemos Machado, Miriam F Carvalho, Ednildo Andrade Torres, Átila Caldas Santos, Mehran Karimpour-Fard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Engineering and Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMunicipal Solid Waste Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceMunicipal solid wasteEnergy recoveryMethaneWaste managementLandfill gasThermal energyBiogasEnvironmental engineeringEnergy (signal processing)EngineeringEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper discusses landfill mining (LM) and uses data from tropical landfills in a preliminary analysis of its applicability. It is shown that there is a tendency of concentration of components with high calorific values over time, the contrary occurring with the municipal solid waste (MSW) water content, w, which is normally smaller for aged samples compared to that for fresh ones. This encourages LM adoption in various landfills since more energy can be recovered from MSW with the use of thermal recovery methods (TRMs) and less energy is necessary for MSW drying. Furthermore, it is demonstrated that 4–6 years is enough for most biological processes to occur in the field in tropical regions, making the use of LM possible in few years after landfill closing. The use of TRMs such as gasification is interesting because the produced hydrogen gas (H 2 ) can be used for electrical power generation similar to methane (CH 4 ). However, the use of thermal energy recovery methods in MSW components can result in dangerous atmospheric emissions, which must be controlled and rigorously monitored, as well as the stability of the MSW mass during the excavation process.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.302
Threshold uncertainty score0.343

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Engineering and ScienceSame topicMunicipal Solid Waste ManagementFrench-language works237,207