MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2970768736 · doi:10.3808/jei.201900417

Mathematical Modeling for Identifying Cost-Effective Policy of Municipal Solid Waste Management under Uncertainty

2019· article· en· W2970768736 on OpenAlexaff
Yongping Li, Guohe Huang, Liang Cui, J. Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Informatics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater resources management and optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersChinese Academy of Sciences
KeywordsMunicipal solid wasteStochastic programmingTerm (time)Interval (graph theory)Operations researchComputer scienceRisk analysis (engineering)EngineeringEnvironmental economicsWaste managementBusinessMathematical optimizationEconomicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In municipal solid waste (MSW) management, many impact factors, such as waste generation rate, treatment capacity, diversion goal, and disposal cost appear uncertain. These uncertainties can result in difficulties in the long-term planning of MSW management activities. A critical issue that decision makers should mitigate is how to address these uncertainties due to a lack of knowledge founded on an incomplete characterization, understanding or measurement of MSW systems. In this study, an inexact twostage waste management (ITWM) model is developed for planning long-term MSW management in the City of Changchun, China. The ITWM model incorporates the techniques of interval-parameter programming (IPP) and two-stage stochastic programming (TSP) within an integer programming framework, such that uncertainties expressed as both intervals and probabilities can be reflected; it can also analyze different policy scenarios that are associated with different economic penalty levels. Two cases related to different waste management policies are examined, generating varied levels of waste-management cost and system-failure risk. The results obtained are valuable for addressing issues of waste diversion and capacity expansion with a minimized system cost. They also suggest that the developed model be meaningful for real-world planning problems and the practicality of this approach can be extended to other environmental planning applications containing significant sources of uncertainty.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 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

Citations53
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental InformaticsSame topicWater resources management and optimizationFrench-language works237,207