MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205716699 · doi:10.1002/admt.202101265

The Global Challenge of Electronics: Managing the Present and Preparing the Future

2021· article· en· W4205716699 on OpenAlexaff
Clara Santato, Pierre‐Jean Alarco

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvanced Materials Technologies · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRecycling and Waste Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObsolescenceReuseElectronicsElectronic wasteSustainabilityEnvironmental economicsBusinessParadigm shiftNatural resource economicsEnvironmental planningEngineeringEnvironmental scienceWaste managementMarketingEconomicsElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Home offices, virtual meeting rooms and online training that were admittedly becoming commonplace, are now essentially inescapable. The greater reliance on electronics, and the data and energy storage, however, comes at a cost. Planned obsolescence and the lack of environmentally benign end‐of‐life scenarios, such as reuse and recycle, but also degrade or vanish for organic electronics, are at the root cause of the dramatic increase in global e‐waste. Their impact is unequally distributed with low‐ and medium‐income countries taking the brunt of the harmful environmental and health effects, on their populations. This Perspective article suggests meaningful paths to mitigate the electronics waste crisis, beyond the 3Rs (reduce, reuse, recycle), that include sustainable and eco‐designed electronics while recognizing the limitations of certain tools at the disposal. Massive paradigm shifts along with profound systemic and cultural changes need to occur for the digital revolution's benefits to outweigh its drawbacks, most important of which are its present unsustainable growth. These shifts need to occur on intersectoral, intersectional, and intergenerational dimensions to alleviate the heavily asymmetrical environmental impact (Global‐North vs Global‐South) e‐waste have. Coordinating efforts at the international level will be crucial to build capacity and make an impact.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0110.015
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.003

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.232 · 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
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

Citations22
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvanced Materials TechnologiesSame topicRecycling and Waste Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207