MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2992440789 · doi:10.2495/sdp-v15-n1-45-56

Management of solid waste from government health centers in the Southern Andaman coast of Thailand

2019· article· en· W2992440789 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
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

VenueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare and Environmental Waste Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolid waste managementMunicipal solid wasteGovernment (linguistics)Environmental planningBusinessWaste managementEnvironmental scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Solid waste (SW) management at government health centers (ghcs) is necessary to reduce pollution, especially in the rural areas. although, the government health centers have guidelines to control and manage solid waste, some areas are weakly regulated and poorly managed. government health centers in the countryside are far from waste management and disposal technology. This paper reports on the solid waste management at six government health centers along the Southern andaman coast of Thailand and aimed to study the types and quantities of waste storage, collection, transportation, and disposal. The results found that solid waste was separated into non-hazardous waste (NhW, general and domestic waste) and hazardous waste (hW, infectious waste and hazardous waste). The percentages of domestic waste and general waste were 90% and 10%, respectively. The percentages of infectious waste and hazardous waste were 91% and 9%, respectively. moreover, the rates of general and domestic waste from all government health centers were 0.01 and 0.04-1.30 kg/person/day, respectively. The average rates of hazardous waste and infectious waste produced were 0.02 kg/person/day and 0.01-0.09 kg/person/day, respectively. Nonhazardous waste was kept in black or translucent plastic bags inside plastic or stainless-steel or rubber bins. hazardous waste was usually put in black plastic bags inside a plastic bin and sometimes no plastic bag was used. Infectious waste was kept in red plastic bags inside plastic or stainless-steel bins. Infectious sharp waste was put in yellow or red sharps bins or puncture proof containers without covers. expired drugs were put in plastic baskets without bags. On-site waste collection was performed by staff personnel at each government health center and off-site disposal of non-hazardous waste was collected by employees of subadministrative organizations that moved waste for disposal by municipal truck to open dumps. hazardous waste including infectious waste and expired drugs was transported from a district hospital by pickup truck. Infectious waste was later sent for incineration and expired drugs were returned to the suppliers. The transport workers wore unsuitable clothes. although the waste materials were basically controlled and managed by the guidelines, handling of the waste was incorrect and ineffective. Therefore, solid waste management from top-down needs to strictly practice the guidelines according to the laws for a better environment.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.601
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.255 · 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