MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402939531 · doi:10.9734/jerr/2024/v26i101289

Barriers to Laminated Film Recycling: Challenges and Opportunities in Engineering Solutions

2024· article· en· W4402939531 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 Engineering Research and Reports · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRecycling and Waste Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceEngineeringArchitectural engineeringConstruction engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Laminated films, extensively used in packaging applications, offer critical properties such as moisture resistance, durability, and mechanical strength, which make them ideal for protecting a wide range of consumer goods. Despite their utility, these materials present significant recycling challenges due to their complex multilayered structures, typically composed of different polymers, metals, and adhesives. This paper aims to explore the principal barriers to the recycling of laminated films, which include material heterogeneity, technical limitations in sorting and processing, and economic constraints that hinder their recovery. Additionally, it examines potential engineering solutions, such as advanced sorting technologies, innovative chemical recycling methods, and the redesign of materials to enhance recyclability. The discussion highlights the importance of a multidisciplinary approach that integrates materials science, process engineering, and policy development to address these barriers effectively.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.570
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.231 · 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