Application of artificial neural networks for predicting the physical composition of municipal solid waste: An assessment of the impact of seasonal variation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sustainable planning of waste management is contingent on reliable data on waste characteristics and their variation across the seasons owing to the consequential environmental impact of such variation. Traditional waste characterization techniques in most developing countries are time-consuming and expensive; hence the need to address the issue from a modelling approach arises. In modelling the complexity within the system, a paradigm shift from the classical models to the intelligent models has been observed. The application of artificial intelligence models in waste management is gaining traction; however its application in predicting the physical composition of waste is still lacking. This study aims at investigating the optimal combinations of network architecture, training algorithm and activation functions that accurately predict the fraction of physical waste streams from meteorological parameters using artificial neural networks. The city of Johannesburg was used as a case study. Maximum temperature, minimum temperature, wind speed and humidity were used as input variables to predict the percentage composition of organic, paper, plastics and textile waste streams. Several sub-models were stimulated with combination of nine training algorithms and four activation functions in each single hidden layer topology with a range of 1-15 neurons. Performance metrics used to evaluate the accuracy of the system are, root mean square error, mean absolute deviation, mean absolute percentage error and correlation coefficient (R). Optimal architectures in the order of input layer-number of neurons in the hidden layer-output layer for predicting organic, paper, plastics and textile waste were 4-10-1, 4-14-1, 4-5-1 and 4-8-1 with R-values of 0.916, 0.862, 0.834 and 0.826, respectively at the testing phase. The result of the study verifies that waste composition prediction can be done in a single hidden-layer satisfactorily.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".