Environmental management criteria, aimed at public policymaking, for the removal and disposal of asbestos-containing building materials in Colombia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Asbestos is a carcinogenic mineral banned in Colombia since 1 January 2021; however, there is a considerable amount of asbestos-containing building materials (ACBM) installed across the country in products such as roof tiles, tanks, pipes, and downspouts. Installed ACBM represent an exposure risk when the mineral fibers are released into the air through deterioration, damage, or disturbance of the cement matrix within which the asbestos is contained. Due to potential detrimental impacts on human health, safe management and correct handling of ACBM is a matter of vital importance. This article proposes evidence-based environmental management guidelines, aimed at public policymaking, for the removal and final disposal of installed ACBM in Colombia. A descriptive study was carried out, with a qualitative approach, based on an integrative literature review of international practices applied in the removal and disposal of installed ACBM. Forty scientific publications were reviewed, as well as the regulations for removal, transport, and final disposal of installed asbestos-cement from Australia, the USA, Italy, Chile, the UK, and Canada. Guidelines for the removal and final disposal of installed ACBM are proposed, suggesting the following stages: (a) diagnosis and management plan of installed ACBM, (b) removal of installed ACBM, (c) transport of ACBM waste, and (d) final disposal of ACBM waste. Expert opinion was collected to assess the local feasibility of the proposed guidelines. These guidelines may help direct national and regional agencies to establish comprehensive strategies with clear, measurable, and achievable goals for future replacement of installed ACBM. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2023;19:1079-1088. © 2023 SETAC.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".