MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392942205 · doi:10.1109/icmla58977.2023.00304

A Two-Stage Deep Learning Framework for Enhanced Waste Detection and Classification

2023· article· en· W4392942205 on OpenAlexaff
Hongbo Pang, Changcheng Huang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMunicipal Solid Waste Management
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStage (stratigraphy)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceDeep learningMachine learningGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the rapid modernization progress over the past decades, waste classification has become increasingly important as cities worldwide seek to implement more sustainable waste management practices. Traditional manual sorting methods are labor-intensive, prone to inaccuracies, and hard to scale, driving the need for automated, efficient solutions. Although deep learning techniques, recognized for their ability to process complex hierarchical data, have emerged as potential aids, their successful implementation is often hampered by the challenging task of gathering diverse, large-scale, high-quality waste image datasets, leading to possible overfitting and model bias. This study proposes an innovative, two-stage waste detection framework that first identifies the bounding box of waste items, then classifies them into one of six primary categories, effectively addressing the inherent issues with previous methodologies by optimally utilizing available data and reducing overfitting and bias. Trained and evaluated on the comprehensive TACO and WaRP waste datasets, our model has demonstrated superior performance relative to existing methods, underscoring its promise as a scalable, accurate, and efficient solution for waste classification, thus offering exciting prospects for further research and practical applications in sustainable waste management.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.513
Threshold uncertainty score0.521

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMunicipal Solid Waste ManagementFrench-language works237,207