MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283759116 · doi:10.3390/jrfm15070294

Waste Bank-Socio-Economic Empowerment Nexus in Indonesia: The Stance of Maqasid al-Shariʻah

2022· article· en· W4283759116 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Miftahorrozi Miftahorrozi, Shabeer Khan, M. Ishaq Bhatti

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMunicipal Solid Waste Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNexus (standard)BusinessIncentiveReuseProfit (economics)EmpowermentProfit sharingGovernment (linguistics)FinanceEconomic growthWaste managementEconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the rapid increase of waste throughout the country, the government of Indonesia has enacted regulations targeting waste reduction using religious sentiment. This is employed in Malang City’s “Waste Bank of Malang” (WBM). This study aims to analyze the impact of waste banks on socio-economic progress, and to assess their efficacy in accomplishing this objective from the Maqasid al-Shariʻah perspective. The research employs a descriptive qualitative approach and uses both primary and secondary data sources. This study found that the operation of WBM contributes considerably to the community’s economic and social well-being. Likewise, the WBM has successfully managed waste by reducing, reusing, and recycling it as it is collected from customers. The customers receive financial incentives from the waste bank in return for providing recycled waste to a specialized firm under a profit-sharing (PLS) contract. As per the findings of the study, the rationale of the waste bank aligns with the Maqasid al-Shariʻah and the Islamic finance contract of PLS arrangements.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations22
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicMunicipal Solid Waste ManagementFrench-language works237,207