MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312240410 · doi:10.46692/9781529206586.007

A Public Sociology of Waste

2022· other· en· W4312240410 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnvironmental Justice and Health Disparities
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologyEnvironmental sociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Wearing masks and keeping our distance from each other and everyone else, I recently walked around the circumference of Frédéric-Back Park with Hillary Predko, one of my graduate students. The walk was months in anticipation, as COVID-19 pandemic restrictions in Montréal have precluded such get-togethers. But on this sunny day, Hillary and I – like the other people we see bicycling, walking their dogs, jogging or picnicking with members of their ‘bubble’ – are grateful and more than a little elated to be (socially distanced) among other people. And what a place to be! Frédéric-Back is not just any park. Some 192 hectares (474 acres) in the Villeray-Saint-Michel region of the city, this park is built on top of a landfill. The area’s industrial life began as a privately owned quarry, which the Miron family transformed into a landfill when neighbouring residents protested against the constant blasting (Ville de Montréal, nd). The City of Montréal bought the site in 1988 and continued to fill the quarry with MSW. Over the course of the 1990s, the city constructed a recycling centre and a biogas power plant to collect and convert the methane produced by the landfill into energy (linear economy). And as of 2020, nearly 75 hectares of this vast space is still being used for landfilling waste (ibid). In countries in the globalized north, waste repositories tend to be sited away from residential communities so that (municipal solid) waste is more likely to be out-of-sight and, according to plan, out-of-mind. That is, as Chapters 2 and 3 detail, individuals, families and households are supposed to consider, take responsibility for and shoulder the financial, behavioural and moral burden of waste from the moment of post-consumption (that is, MSW) to the moment of disposal or diversion. After that, we are meant to forget about what happens to our waste. Concerned about the health, environmental and financial effects of living near landfills or incinerators, many people strongly prefer – and lobby for – landfills and incinerators to be as far away from their homes as possible, which often means these waste technologies are sited near communities without the money, power and/ or influence to object.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0110.051
Scholarly communication0.0140.018
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0060.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnvironmental Justice and Health DisparitiesFrench-language works237,207