MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sustainability Gets Thrown in the Trash: Comparing The Drivers and Barriers of Festival Waste Management In Canada and New Zealand

2022· article· en· W4213305740 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEvent Management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSport and Mega-Event Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilityLeverage (statistics)BusinessContext (archaeology)PoliticsEnvironmental resource managementMarketingEnvironmental planningPolitical scienceEconomicsGeographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ten years ago, in 2012, the United Nations announced a global waste crisis. The festival industry produces a significant amount of waste; however, management practices and policies across locational contexts can help address sustainability goals. This study used Mair and Jago's model to understand the drivers and barriers experienced by festival organizers in Canada and New Zealand. Five key findings emerged from this study: (1) similarities in context, drivers, barriers, and catalysts exist across these two countries; (2) internal forces were generally more significant drivers than external forces; (3) waste management companies hold the potential to be a significant catalyst; (4) the most prominent barriers were a lack of resources and a lack of knowledge/awareness/skill; (5) political leadership as a contextual factor can support the adoption of festival waste management practices. Recommendations are put forth to leverage drivers and fill management and policy gaps in support of the United Nations SDGs.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.191
Threshold uncertainty score0.282

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.264
Teacher spread0.249 · 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