MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391442691 · doi:10.24294/jipd.v8i3.2906

Understanding the determinants of households’ intention to practise solid waste segregation-at-source: Theoretical framework development

2024· article· en· W4391442691 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Infrastructure Policy and Development · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban and Rural Development Challenges
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMunicipal solid wastePsychologyBusinessWaste managementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: The level of the environment is gradually declining, especially with regard to the serious problem of solid waste. Solid waste segregation-at-source is seen as the most essential approach to helping the natural environment minimize the amount of waste generated before being transferred to waste disposal sites and landfills in many rapidly growing towns and cities in developing countries. However, a number of previous environmental-based research have focused only on the general scope of recycling, sustainable development, and the purchase intention for sustainable food products. This situation has led to useful and relevant information on the research scope of households’ intention to segregate solid waste at source, which remains largely unanswered. The aim of this paper is, therefore, to provide a literature review to develop a novel theoretical framework in understanding the determinants of households’ intention to practise solid waste segregation-at-source. Theoretical framework: The study provides a detailed explanation of the application of the Theory of Reasoned Action, the Fietkau-Kessel Model, the Focus Theory of Normative Conduct, and the Value-Basis Theory to predict the relationship between attitude, subjective norms, environmental concerns, and environmental knowledge of households on intention to practise solid waste segregation-at-source. Design/methodology/approach: This research is descriptive in nature. Findings: A better understanding of the potential mediator and moderator is needed to contribute to the body of knowledge on the causal relationship between the studied variables. In conclusion, the researchers discuss how the framework can be used to address future research implications as more evidence emerges. Research, practical and social implications: The current study is expected to broaden previous research in order to improve general understanding of attitudes and subjective norms towards the specific research scope of solid waste segregation-at-source.

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.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.472
Threshold uncertainty score0.488

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.282 · 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