MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4289705652 · doi:10.1002/pts.2653

Life cycle assessment of returnable mailers used for apparel electronic commerce: A case study in Canada

2022· article· en· W4289705652 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePackaging Technology and Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRecycling and Waste Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLife-cycle assessmentPaperboardEnvironmental impact assessmentSustainabilityClothingBusinessReuseEnvironmental economicsEngineeringWaste managementEconomicsProduction (economics)Geography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

E‐commerce is increasingly popular in the fashion industry in Canada. Based on a case study, this research analysed the environmental sustainability of the returnable e‐commerce package format distributed in Canadian apparel retail channels. The case study compared the environmental impacts of a returnable polypropylene mailer to those of two different expendable packaging formats currently used by a brand owner, such as a corrugated paperboard package and a low‐density polypropylene mailer. A life cycle assessment (LCA) was conducted to examine the environmental impacts of the three packaging scenarios. The foreground data of the LCA were obtained from a brand owner and packaging suppliers in 2021. TRACI 2.1, including 10 life cycle impact categories, was used for the LCA. The comparative LCA results showed that the returnable mailer generated the lowest environmental impact for eight out of 10 impact categories when the final consumers' locations were relatively close to the brand owner or returnable packaging service provider. The expendable corrugated paperboard packaging format contributed the greatest environmental burden in all the impact categories primarily because it used a large amount of material and was relatively heavy. However, the comparative results were changed for some impact indicators depending on the final consumer's location and the number of reuse cycles for the returnable mailer. Specifically, the returnable mailer had a higher environmental impact than the expendable mailer for half of the 10 impact categories when the number of reuses for the returnable mailer was decreased to 10 cycles.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.684
Threshold uncertainty score0.737

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.263 · 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