An Exploration and Comparison of Attitudes Towards the Participatory Solid Waste Management for Sustainable Development of Communities in Khaoroopchang Municipality, Songkhla Province, Thailand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to explore and compare the community members’ attitudes towards community participation in solid waste management. The participants in this research were 400 people in 3 communities in Khaoroopchang Municipality. The research instrument was a set of 5-point rating scale questionnaires, enquiring about the community members’ attitudes towards the community’s solid waste management. The statistics used for data analysis were mean, standard deviation, t-test, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and LSD pairwise comparison. The results revealed that the community members’ attitudes towards the participatory solid waste management were at a high level. The results also showed that people who had different ages, education, occupations, residences, and family incomes had different attitudes towards waste management. This research outcome serves as a guideline for community leaders in changing the behavior of each household in the community in terms of waste sorting, career enhancement, and increasing income in the community in order to be good role models and local philosophers for sustainable development.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".