MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200191707 · doi:10.6028/nist.sp.1500-204

Circular economy in the high-tech world workshop report

2021· report· en· W4200191707 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kelsea A. Schumacher, Martin L. Green

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExtraction and Separation Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Renewable Energy LaboratoryUniversity of California, IrvineNational Institute of Standards and TechnologyMaterial Measurement LaboratoryMemorial University of NewfoundlandSeagate TechnologyColorado School of MinesArgonne National LaboratoryPurdue UniversityU.S. Department of Homeland SecurityU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
KeywordsReuseNISTGovernment (linguistics)Circular economyEngineering managementEngineeringHigh techBusinessKey (lock)State (computer science)Political scienceComputer scienceWaste managementComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) held a Technical Workshop on January 27 and 28, 2021 to assess the state and challenges of a Circular Economy (CE) in the High-Tech World. Scientists, researchers, and program managers in the CE arena, from industry, academia, government, national laboratories, and non-governmental organizations gathered virtually to identify challenges and key priorities to facilitate the reuse, repair, and recycling of electronic products, solar panels, and batteries. The results of the workshop provide important input for program planning and research directions that can advance materials design, use, reuse, and recovery, thus enhancing circularity.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0110.007
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.009

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.257 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicExtraction and Separation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207