Payment for Environmental Services for Waste Pickers: Systematic Literature Mapping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Payment for Environmental Services (PES) systems, environmental service providers receive compensation for a conservationist action that implies the preservation of natural resources. The objective of this systematic mapping was to identify and discuss scientific articles that address the theme 'Payment for Environmental Services - PES for Waste Pickers Organizations', to understand the state of art of hiring these workers as environmental service providers. The study was developed using the method of systematic mapping of literature, from 2009 to 2019, considering qualitative and quantitative aspects. Results indicated that the countries that most investigate this theme are Brazil, China, India, and Indonesia. The articles portray the informal work of waste pickers, working conditions and the transition from informal systems to waste management in public services. The relationship between payment for environmental services and the work of waste pickers is not yet evident. Furthermore, research on PES and recycling are developed along distinct lines, without interdisciplinarity. However, PES shows itself as an important socio-environmental management tool that has the potential to solve relevant problems of recyclable waste management, because it presents congruent characteristics with the public procurement systems for waste pickers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".