Life Cycle Assessment of Smart Food Packaging Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Circular economy is a major goal toward achieving sustainable development. This helps address climate change, preserve the environment, create jobs, and fulfill overall societal needs. Synthetic plastic-based food packaging materials significantly impact the environment and human health. Biopolymer and natural additive-based nanocomposites are promising alternatives, and numerous R&D efforts are taken to develop intelligent food packaging systems using these biodegradable materials. Life cycle assessment (LCA) techniques, including social life cycle assessment (S-LCA), are quantitative approaches to evaluate the harmful effects of synthetic plastic packaging systems and to compare them with environment-friendly biodegradable polymer-based packaging systems. Biopolymers such as carbohydrates and proteins from natural origin are primary matrices, which are reinforced and functionalized with natural additives/nanomaterials to develop sustainable intelligent food packaging systems. This chapter is a synoptic discussion on the contribution of biopolymer-based intelligent food packaging systems toward achieving circularity in the environment and society, in general. Using biopolymer-based plastics is an effective way for closing the loop, either by reusing or recycling. In summary, biopolymer-based smart packaging (SP) material combines the advantages of food preservation and environmental safety, while maintaining economic viability and sustainability.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".