MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296123179 · doi:10.1016/j.cis.2022.102769

Separation of plastic wastes using froth flotation – An overview

2022· review· en· W4296123179 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Colloid and Interface Science · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRecycling and Waste Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersFaculty of Engineering, McGill UniversityMcGill University
KeywordsPlastic wasteWaste managementEnvironmental scienceEnvironmentally friendlyMunicipal solid wasteFroth flotationEngineeringMaterials scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite various initiatives and efforts, plastic solid waste (PSW) has become a major global problem due to decades of relentless use of plastics. Since non-biodegradable plastics can persist in the environment for hundreds of years, threatening animal and human life, discarding them into the environment is not a viable option. Plastic recycling is a critical research area that requires urgent attention since less than 10% of the seven billion tons of globally generated plastic waste has been recycled so far. With recent technological developments, it is now possible to recycle many types of PSW using a variety of methods. This review provides an overview of the froth flotation technology that is currently being researched for PSW recycling. Fundamental working principles, the current state of the development, and limitations of this technique are reviewed. It is suggested that froth flotation with continuous development has tremendous potential to result in a more efficient and environmentally friendly approach to PSW recycling.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.676

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.356 · 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