MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4248564417 · doi:10.2175/106143005x54489

Automotive Wastes

2005· article· en· W4248564417 on OpenAlexafffund
Ahmed G. El‐Din, Parmjit Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Environment Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMunicipal Solid Waste Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
FundersEuropean CommissionUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsCitationAutomotive industryLibrary scienceSociologyComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review provides a summary of the most recently published research literature related to automotive wastes, solid wastes including wastes from automotive bodies and acid batteries, emissions produced by automotive industry and vehicles, and its toxicological and public health effects. GENERALEuropean legislations such as the End of Life Vehicle (ELV), Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) and the Restriction of use of certain Hazardous Substances (RHS) Directives, as well as strict domestic and international labeling and reporting requirements, were reviewed by Przekop and Kerr (2004).This prompted automotive manufacturers to evaluate their products and processes to determine the recycling potential and identify the presence of hazardous restricted substances.It was concluded that the companies that implemented the data collection and management procedures would be able to meet "End of Life" reporting requirements, and design future products that are eco-friendly and provide an economical advantage.Schmidt et al. (2004) summarized the results of a European Commission funded project (LIRECAR)

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.016

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Environment ResearchSame topicMunicipal Solid Waste ManagementFrench-language works237,207