MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317603852 · doi:10.1021/acsenvironau.2c00050

A Review on the Challenges and Choices for Food Waste Valorization: Environmental and Economic Impacts

2023· review· en· W4317603852 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

VenueACS Environmental Au · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Waste Reduction and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Agriculture, Food and Rural AffairsUniversity of Guelph
FundersOntario Ministry of Economic Development, Job Creation and TradeMinistero dello Sviluppo EconomicoAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaMinistry of Agriculture, Food and Rural AffairsNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
KeywordsFood wasteSustainabilityCircular economyBusinessTonneGreenhouse gasTotal economic valueNatural resource economicsInvestment (military)Economic feasibilityWaste managementEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental planningAgricultural economicsEconomicsEngineeringEcosystem services

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

equiv/tonne FW) and economic (-100 to $138/tonne FW) impacts of FW depend on the multiple parameters of food chains and waste management systems. Although enormous efforts are underway to reduce FW as well as valorize unavoidable FW to reduce environmental and economic loss, it seems the transdisciplinary approach/initiative would be essential to minimize FW as well as abate the environmental impacts of FW. A joint effort from stakeholders is the key to reducing FW and the efficient and effective valorization of FW to improve its sustainability. However, any initiative in reducing food waste should consider a broader sustainability check to avoid risks to investment and the environment.

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)0.000
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 score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.194 · 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