MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3116081802 · doi:10.14288/1.0392603

Reducing Single-Use Plastic Cup Waste at Events Held in the Engineering Student Centre (ESC)

2020· article· en· W3116081802 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandra Martín, Chris Stoicheff, Denby McDonnell, Heather Park, Rasmus Dilling-Hansen

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMaterial Selection and Properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlastic wasteSingle useEngineeringForensic engineeringWaste managementProcess engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The UBC SEEDS Program introduced students to the client, the Engineering Undergraduate Society (“EUS”), on January 3, 2019. From the list of sustainability concerns highlighted, it was determined the team would be addressing the principle client concern of single use plastic cup waste. [Client Concern] Events hosted at the EUS student building are resulting in the disposal of a significant volume of single-use plastic cups. The EUS is seeking policy solutions to reduce the number of single-use plastic cups disposed across all event-types. [Actions taken] The student team undertook preliminary research to assess the status of the singleuse plastics disposal problem. This included: conducting stakeholder interviews, reviewing current EUS contracts and related policy regulation, and attending two EUS events of varying size and duration to observe event participant behavior and construct a sample baseline of cup use. [Deliverable Content] As a part of the final report, the student team has produced recommendations for immediate action by EUS as well as a detailed pilot project design for use by the EUS Sustainability Council to evaluate longer-term, more intensive solutions. Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report.”

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.006

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.166
Teacher spread0.150 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicMaterial Selection and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207