Food waste supply and behaviour towards its alternative uses in Kampala city, Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Solid waste management is a major challenge in sub-Saharan Africa in general and its food waste component is high and increasing with the rapidly increasing population. Survey data (class p1) collected from households, hotels, restaurants, schools and produce markets were analysed using descriptive and logistic regression analyses for insights into the types and amounts of food waste, and respondents’ attitudes and practices towards its collection, disposal and alternative uses. Households produce the highest amounts of food waste compared to institutions (hotels, schools and restaurants) and produce markets. In a week, about 96, 72, and 93% of all the respondents in households, institutions and produce markets respectively experienced food waste at least one to three times. On average, with a solid waste collection coverage of 45%, households, institutions and markets in Kampala can respectively supply 680, 80, and 8 t of food waste daily. Moulding, poor food storage, food leftovers, food expiry and excess food produce were the major reasons for condemning food to waste. Over 90% of the respondents recognized food waste as a problem, and as a resource especially for use in livestock feed production, and were willing to consume house crickets raised on feed from food waste. Lower levels of education (none, primary and secondary levels), unemployment, and being divorced at household level were positively associated with recognizing food waste as a resource [X 2 (21, N = 209) = 137.77, p = < 0.0001] and re-use for alternative purposes [X 2 (21, N = 209) = 47.44, p = 0.001] by households and institutions [X 2 (14, N = 92) = 30.97, p = < 0.019]. Majority of the respondents were willing to donate food waste, especially married people and institutions that have been in existence for a period of 5–10 years.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".