Solid waste management practices in two northern Manitoba first nations communities: community perspectives on the issues and solutions
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For many First Nations in Northern Manitoba, solid waste management remains a serious, albeit under-researched, problem. A case study of solid waste management was undertaken in Garden Hill and Wasagamack First Nations, two remote fly-in communities in northern Manitoba. Solid waste management practices were investigated through interviews, participatory documentary video and laboratory analysis. Findings indicated that poor funding, absence of any recycling programs and lack of waste collection services contributed to indiscriminate burning and disposal in public places. Laboratory analyses revealed that soil samples from the dump sites had arsenic, chromium, lead, zinc and copper above CCME guidelines. These elevated levels of toxic metals are of significant concern as the dumps are both nearby to water bodies, and have no restrictions, such as fence, to prevent public access. Appropriate funding for solid waste programs, including waste collection and disposal facilities, recycling and training programs are highly recommended to safeguard community health.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it