MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3165760318 · doi:10.1002/cssc.202100874

Current Developments in the Chemical Upcycling of Waste Plastics Using Alternative Energy Sources

2021· review· en· W3165760318 on OpenAlexaff
M.R. Karimi Estahbanati, Xin Ying Kong, Ali Eslami, Han Sen Soo

Bibliographic record

VenueChemSusChem · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRecycling and Waste Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
FundersSingapore National Academy of ScienceAgency for Science, Technology and ResearchNational Research Foundation
KeywordsIncinerationEnvironmentally friendlyWaste managementPyrolysisCircular economyEnvironmental scienceMaterials scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The management of plastics waste is one of the most urgent and significant global problems now. Historically, waste plastics have been predominantly discarded, mechanically recycled, or incinerated for energy production. However, these approaches typically relied on thermal processes like conventional pyrolysis, which are energy‐intensive and unsustainable. In this Minireview, some of the latest advances and future trends in the chemical upcycling of waste plastics by photocatalytic, electrolytic, and microwave‐assisted pyrolysis processes are discussed as more environmentally friendly alternatives to conventional thermal reactions. We highlight how the transformation of different types of plastics waste by exploiting alternative energy sources can generate value‐added products such as fuels (H 2 and other carbon‐containing small molecules), chemical feedstocks, and newly functionalized polymers, which can contribute to a more sustainable and circular economy.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations83
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemSusChemSame topicRecycling and Waste Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207