MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3091900619 · doi:10.47670/wuwijar201822oasu

Transition from Linear to Circular Economy

2018· article· en· W3091900619 on OpenAlexaff
Sugam Upadhayay, Omaima Alqassimi

Bibliographic record

VenueWestcliff International Journal of Applied Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSustainable Supply Chain Management
Canadian institutionsWycliffe College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCircular economyRestructuringDispose patternRemanufacturingReverse logisticsConsumption (sociology)BusinessReuseIndustrial organizationSharing economyEnvironmental economicsOrder (exchange)Product (mathematics)Resource (disambiguation)Economic systemComputer scienceEconomicsEngineeringSupply chainManufacturing engineeringMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The contemporary model of economical production and consumption is not sustainable; if the pattern continues, humankind will need to scramble for resources. Currently, resource extraction from the earth is 1.7 times higher than her actual capacity (Watts, 2018). This paper stresses the importance of the shift from the current linear (take, make and dispose) modality to a circular (take, make and reutilize) model to maximize the value from a product by keeping it in the loop of circularity. In pursuit of this change in model, reverse logistics, performance economy, and sharing economy all need to be integrated in order to facilitate regenerative and restorative techniques which enable reusing, recycling, remanufacturing and refurbishing of resources. Businesses need to redesign and restructure their current processes so that they can reduce the consumption of resources, thus developing a competitive edge. Incineration and dumping of resources should be the last option. The assets that are able to sense, record and communicate information are referred to as “intelligent assets” which innovates “smart solutions” to enable a circular economy (MacArthur, 2016). But this paradigm shift is not possible alone through the effort of a single entity. Involvement and commitments from individual, regional, governmental and intra-governmental levels are mandatory as it helps to create a synergist effect.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations67
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWestcliff International Journal of Applied ResearchSame topicSustainable Supply Chain ManagementFrench-language works237,207