Influence of Canadian provincial stewardship model attributes on the cost effectiveness of e-waste management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a comprehensive analysis of e-waste collection and management trends across six Canadian provinces, focusing on e-waste collection rates, provincial stewardship model attributes, program strategies and budget allocations from 2013 to 2020. Temporal and regression analyses were conducted using data from Electronic Product Recycling Association reports. A group characterization based on geographical proximity is proposed, aiming to explore the potential outcomes of fostering collaboration among neighboring provinces. The analysis emphasizes the significant impact of stewardship model attributes on e-waste collection rates, with Quebec emerging as a standout case, showcasing a remarkable 61.5% surge in collection rates. Findings from group analysis reveal a positive correlation between per capita e-waste collection rate and the growth of businesses and collection sites in Western Canada (Group A - British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba). This highlights the potential benefits of a coordinated waste management approach, emphasizing the importance of shared resources and collaborative policies. Saskatchewan and Manitoba allocated only 6.6% and 7.0% of their respective budgets to e-waste transfer and storage. British Columbia's observed steady decrease of e-waste collection rate. In Group A, stewards handled 2.18-13.95 tonnes of e-waste during the study period. The cost per tonne of e-waste tended to be lower when more e-waste is managed per steward, suggesting the potential benefits of an integrated e-waste collection and management system.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".