Developing Interventions for Scaling Up UK Upcycling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Upcycling presents one of many opportunities for reducing consumption of materials and energy. Despite recent growth evidenced by increasing numbers of practitioners and businesses based on upcycling, it remains a niche activity and requires scaling up to realise its potential benefits. This paper investigates UK household upcycling in order to develop interventions for scaling up upcycling in the UK. Mixed methods were used in four stages: (a) Interviews to gain insights into UK upcycling; (b) a survey to discover key factors influencing UK upcycling; (c) intervention development based on the synthesis of interviews and survey; and (d) use of a semi-Delphi technique to evaluate and develop initial interventions. The results showed approaches to upcycling (e.g., wood, metal and fabric as frequently used materials, online platforms as frequently used source of materials), context for upcycling (e.g., predominant use of home for upcycling), factors influencing UK upcycling with key determinants (i.e., intention, attitude and subjective norm), important demographic characteristics considering a target audience for interventions (i.e., 30+ females) and prioritised interventions for scaling up (e.g., TV and inspirational media and community workshops as short-term high priority interventions). The paper further discusses implications of the study in terms of development of theory and practice of upcycling.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".