MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111609432 · doi:10.31025/2611-4135/2020.14029

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ON-SITE SORTING FOR C&D IN CHINA AND EUROPE

2020· article· en· W3111609432 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDetritus · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRecycled Aggregate Concrete Performance
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaBusinessEuropean unionLegalizationNatural resource economicsInternational tradeEconomicsGeographyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Construction and demolition waste (CDW) accounts for 40% of urban municipal waste in China and around 25% in the European Union (EU). Since the EU is more developed and urbanized than China, its experience with managing CDW may be helpful to China. This study therefore compared China and the EU with respect to the flow of CDW materials and the policies, laws and regulations for CDW management. The results reveal that the CDW management practices and facilities in China are relatively underdeveloped with a large amount of low-value inert material going to landfill compared with the EU. The study also reveals the important role of government involvement in CDW management, including the use of punitive measures and preferential policies; most EU members states achieved their waste recovery rates by 2016 due to mature CDW legalization. To improve the management of CDW in China, a series of suggestions are proposed including waste prevention strategies, establishment of supervision mechanisms, and financial support.

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)0.000
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 score0.244
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.228 · 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