MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385500135 · doi:10.1051/e3sconf/202340801021

The circular economy of Robinson Crusoe: Exploring the impact of the representative consumer

2023· article· en· W4385500135 on OpenAlexaff
Danylo Cherevatsky, Roman G. Smirnov, Denys Lypnytskyi, Мyroslava Soldak

Bibliographic record

VenueE3S Web of Conferences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicGlobal Energy and Sustainability Research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCircular economyConsumption (sociology)MacroEconomicsFocus (optics)Perspective (graphical)EconomyState (computer science)Industrial organizationEconomic systemBusinessEnvironmental economicsComputer scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The circular economy typically addresses waste recycling issues at the micro-level, primarily focusing on individual enterprises, and less frequently at the meso-level, such as regions. This article introduces a novel perspective by examining recycling processes not only at the macro level but also through the lens of the Robinson Crusoe economy (ERC). The ERC concept was originally proposed in the 1930s. In this new paradigm, a representative producer, embodying Robinson Crusoe, establishes a business structure that implements a circular economy mega-project. This project comprises individual mono-projects aimed at maximizing profits derived from waste recycling. On the other hand, a representative consumer (representing the state and society) seeks to maximize its inherent utility, including taxes and fees. Now, the focus shifts to Robinson Crusoe as a consumer, thus defining the objective of this study as identifying approaches to determining the macroeconomic effects associated with such consumption. The recycling of blast-furnace slags in Ukraine serves as a case study for analysis.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.530
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueE3S Web of ConferencesSame topicGlobal Energy and Sustainability ResearchFrench-language works237,207