MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312471508 · doi:10.5334/bc.277

Meeting urban GHG reduction goals with waste diversion: multi-residential buildings

2022· article· en· W4312471508 on OpenAlexaffabout
Virginia Maclaren, Ece Ikiz, Emily Alfred

Bibliographic record

VenueBuildings and Cities · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMunicipal Solid Waste Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGarbageMunicipal solid wastePromotion (chess)BusinessWaste collectionGreenhouse gasEnvironmental planningWaste managementEngineeringEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Waste diversion targets are a common characteristic of municipal climate change mitigation plans because about two-thirds of residential waste sent to landfills is degradable and thus contributes to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This paper focuses on the challenge of achieving waste diversion targets in multi-residential buildings because their diversion rates are much lower than those for single-family homes. A case study of 15 high-rise condominium and cooperative housing buildings compares modes of governance by the City of Toronto and by multi-residential buildings to address waste diversion challenges. City responses to the challenges included mandatory building standards making waste diversion as convenient as garbage disposal, voluntary standards for in-suite storage of recyclables and organics, phase-in of organics collection and pay-as-you-throw collection fees, and delivery of promotion and education programs. For buildings, the responses were fines for poor-quality sorting, conversion of the garbage chute to an organics chute, the delivery of education material to residents, and monitoring bin capacity. Despite these initiatives, Toronto is very unlikely to meet its target of diverting 70% of residential waste away from disposal in landfill by 2030. Seven actions are recommended to increase the rate of diversion. Policy relevance Recommended actions for Toronto and other municipalities facing similar waste diversion deficits in the multi-residential sector include: studying the potential for converting garbage chutes to organic chutes, assessing the effectiveness of different chute systems, modifying waste collection service agreements or city bylaws to incorporate obligations for promotion and education around waste diversion, revising building standards to require more space for diversion facilities inside buildings, adopting voluntary building standards for building operations, and advocating with higher levels of government to regulate packaging complexity.

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)0.001
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 score0.230
Threshold uncertainty score0.458

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBuildings and CitiesSame topicMunicipal Solid Waste ManagementFrench-language works237,207