MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3200840251 · doi:10.33423/jabe.v22i12.3890

Kitchen Waste Management: A Case Study from China

2020· article· en· W3200840251 on OpenAlexaffvenue

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Business and Economics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Waste Reduction and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsCape Breton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrbanizationIndustrialisationWaste managementChinaBusinessMunicipal solid wasteProduct (mathematics)Sustainable developmentMunicipal corporationPopulationNatural resource economicsEnvironmental scienceEngineeringEconomic growthEconomicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Economic growth, urbanization, industrialization and population growth have led to generation of a considerable amount of solid waste across the world. Kitchen waste accounts for a large portion of collected solid waste in different countries. Deploying different methods to treat kitchen waste contributes to sustainable development. This paper presents real-world insights from a waste management corporation in China, i.e., Weifang Jinxinda bio-chemical Co., Ltd. Different treatment methods, process flow, and conversion rates from waste to a final product are discussed.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.145

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Business and EconomicsSame topicFood Waste Reduction and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207