MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Circular Economy and Solid Waste Management: Connections from a Bibliometric Analysis

2023· preprint· en· W4386446501 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wender Freitas Reis, Cristiane Gomes Barreto, Mauro Guilherme Maidana Capelari

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSustainable Supply Chain Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundação de Apoio à Pesquisa do Distrito Federal
KeywordsCircular economyReuseScopusConsumption (sociology)ChinaEnvironmental economicsBusinessMunicipal solid wastePoint (geometry)Solid waste managementCleaner productionRegional scienceWaste managementEngineeringEconomicsGeographyPolitical scienceSociologyMathematicsSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The circular economy (CE) has emerged as a viable alternative for tackling the problems caused by rising consumption, including solid waste (SW). The present study conducted a meta-analysis of research published between 2012 and 2022 on CE and solid waste management (SWM). A bibliometric analysis was used from the Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus databases. By studying the articles, we briefly discussed the connections between them and how one contributes to the evolution of the other. Some findings point to greater collaboration between Italy and Bolivia, followed by China and Malaysia. However, they move away from the traditional axes as the United States and Canada. In addition, it was found that the adoption of reuse and selective collection, in fact, allow the reduction of the volume of discarded materials. In this way, it was possible to conclude that a greater connection between CE and GRS makes it possible to optimize the useful life of landfills through the treatment of organic waste and recycling, to encourage waste picker cooperatives and selective collection programs, and to reduce the financial costs of the system as a whole, making it more durable and sustainable.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Bibliometrics, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesBibliometrics, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.1040.074
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.011
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.004

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Bibliometrics

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Other design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical · Review

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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.orgSame topicSustainable Supply Chain ManagementCategoryBibliometricsFrench-language works237,207