MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388031817 · doi:10.18280/ijdne.180316

Assessing Potential Landfill Sites Using GIS and Remote Sensing Techniques: A Case Study in Kirkuk, Iraq

2023· article· en· W4388031817 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rana Mozahim Hamdoon, Khamis Naba Sayl

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMunicipal Solid Waste Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRemote sensingGeographic information systemEnvironmental scienceGeographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Solid waste management poses a significant challenge in rapidly growing urban centers in developing countries, including Iraq.Landfilling is the most prevalent method for solid waste disposal, and identifying suitable landfill locations that minimize environmental and societal impacts is crucial.The proliferation of random waste disposal sites in Kirkuk city underscores the need for the application of international standards in selecting optimal landfill sites.In this study, Geographic Information System (GIS) and Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) were integrated to determine the most appropriate landfill site in Kirkuk city.A model was developed to identify the most suitable location for a proposed landfill, taking into account various factors.Four potential sites were proposed and compared to the existing location, with the selection based on multiple criteria.Key criteria included proximity to villages, wells, rivers, surface water, hospitals, schools, oil pipelines, airports, and parks; environmental factors such as agricultural land, hydrology, groundwater, and land use/land cover (LULC); engineering aspects including soil, roads, slopes, railways, and valleys; and socio-economic factors like cost and public acceptance.The results indicated that the current landfill site exhibited the least negative impact on environmental, economic, and social aspects.The proposed method demonstrated efficiency in application, reducing the time and cost with remarkable accuracy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations25
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Design & Nature and EcodynamicsSame topicMunicipal Solid Waste ManagementFrench-language works237,207