MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3177867679

A Community Compost Exchange Manual: reconnecting municipal organic waste and soil management

2021· article· en· W3177867679 on OpenAlex
Adam Dirks

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueYork University Digital Library (York University) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRecycling and Waste Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompostEnvironmental scienceMunicipal solid wasteBusinessWaste managementEnvironmental planningEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ontario’s Provincial waste strategy and Toronto’s long term-waste management plan both clearly recognize that the multi-residential sector holds the greatest opportunity for increased participation and decreased contamination in waste collection. With this in mind, A Community Compost Exchange Manual: reconnecting municipal organic waste and soil management was made to highlight the impacts and connections a community-based waste management (CBWM) project has to the multi-faceted issues facing multi-residential waste diversion. This manual uses a collection of essays as a framework to connect different elements of (CBWM) to greater schematic themes impacting organics recycling in Ontario and Toronto. The work can be read sequentially, or each section can be read as a stand-alone piece that dives into the academic and experienced-based aspects of the Community Compost Exchange (CCE) an organics recycling program in Toronto. A methodology comprising of literature reviews, analyses from participant surveys, qualitative data through interviews and personal communications with current Toronto composters, and personal experiences of managing and scaling up the CCE are used to inform this work. The manual starts with a soil acknowledgment that centers Indigenous knowledge and its contributions to composting and soil management. Then the programs goals and intentions are addressed in its mission statement along with the collected statistics beginning in 2015.
\nFollowing that, an essay on current food waste diversion programs and techniques being utilized by Solid Waste Management Services of Toronto and local community groups is organized within a food waste hierarchy structure. This analysis shows that community initiatives do most of the work for preferred diversion methods but proportionally, are very under-supported by current municipal budgets. Then, the major components of the CCE are described in detail through three essays: 1. knowledge sharing and food justice at urban farm markets; 2. Incentivization of organics participation; and 3. best practices for processing municipal waste into nutrient dense compost for use in agricultural soils. Finally, an in-depth look at the policies impacting community composting, from the federal to municipal levels, identifies solutions and produces policy recommendations to grow decentralized composting across Ontario. Waste touches deeply on both social, political, economic, ecological and justice-based issues, which is why this manual works to thoroughly place the Community Compost Exchange into a diverse dialogue with these issues.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.684
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.172
Teacher spread0.158 · 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