The analysis of the potential of material and energy recovery of municipal waste in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Waste-related management is a complex topic which has evolved significantly over time. In a modern context, with the environment at the forefront, traditional methods alone cannot satisfy the needs. Even our current definition and use of the word waste needs to change. Sustainable and integrated waste-related management (SIWRM) is a holistic approach to traditional waste management, with clearly defined principles and focus on prevention and reduction. The role of waste-related products to energy (WRPtE) in this SIWRM hierarchy is very important. Also known as energy recycling, these technologies can produce some tangible quantities of energy from products otherwise considered waste. Modern technologies are designed to meet the most stringent environmental standards and in most cases are preferable to landfills as a disposal alternative. Canada’s policy towards WRPtE and SIWRM is unfocused and unclear. Provinces are left to set their own targets and the regions are supposed to develop and implement their own plans. There are benefits to a structure which allows strategies to be region specific however the environmental impact of this activity should be addressed at the national level, with policies to guide the regional activities. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are a global issue and the waste-related industry is a large net producer of GHGs. With proper choices made within a SIWRM context, this industry can actually become a sink rather than a source. Each component present in our waste and recoverable products (WandRP) has its own characteristics which, if managed correctly, can be re-used for other purposes or recycled to generate new products or even energy. In Canada we generate more WandRP per capita than most developed nations, we divert a fraction of it from landfill, and we export some to the USA. The industry is a net producer of GHG emissions and current policies promote landfills over WRPtE facilities, with no clear national targets for waste reduction, diversion or conversion. Ultimately, this paper will demonstrate how Canada compares to other countries in this field, what their potential for diversion is and the associated GHG emissions for various scenarios. Recommendations are made to help Canada establish targets and development programs towards a sustainable future.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".