What do Consumers Think About Disposal Recyclable Waste in Montreal? A Study on Discard Behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nowadays, we live in a context of social and economic crises, declining in non‐renewable resources and environmental pollution. On the other hand, we can see the growing awareness of social responsibility, sustainability practice increasing and concern for the environment. But, to have success and develop sustainable processes, it is necessary that all involved actors contribute by working collaboratively in the supply chain. In this sense, it is important to understand what the consumers think about recyclable disposal waste in the supermarkets. In this way, this study aimed to verify the perception of the consumers from the city of Montreal in Canada to dispose of their recyclable waste in supermarkets in Montreal. Qualitative research was carried out and the data were collected through seven personal interviews with consumers from Montreal supermarkets, selected by convenience. As results, it was possible to identify consumers being aware of the importance of conscious disposal to reduce pollution in the environment, despite they don’t practice. They emphasize that supermarkets and grocery stores do not incentivize the recycling process. The results also show that, in general, consumers think that it’s not practical and convenient to dispose of their recyclable waste in the supermarket in Montreal. Finally, consumers agree that it will be positive if the supermarkets encourage their consumers to dispose of the recyclable waste by offering financial benefits. They also believe that this action could incentivize people to recycle more. These results are important for the sustainable development, for the establishment of strategies towards sustainability by the supermarkets. The supermarkets can develop sustainable practices working together with their consumers, promoting gains to supermarkets, consumers 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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".