Reimagining urban waste management: Addressing social, climate, and resource challenges in modern cities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Governments worldwide are seeking better solutions for solid waste management. Thermal treatment projects are presented as quick fixes for rising waste challenges, without addressing the limitations of incineration. Currently, there is a rise in proposals for thermal treatment technologies in developing countries. Scrutiny of the risks and impacts of these alternatives is necessary due to social, climate, and resource considerations. Energy from waste incineration is considered fossil energy since about half of the CO 2 emissions come from fossil polymers in the waste. From a sustainability perspective, landfilling is a short-term option for materials currently unsuitable for recycling. Landfills act as bioreactors, producing valuable biogas, and serve as “resource banks,” storing unrecyclable resources until better recycling techniques are developed. In developing countries manual labor is abundant and material sorting and landfilling are more valuable and have a lower climate and resource footprint. This paper offers a novel, integrated perspective of waste management in view of poverty reduction, climate change and resource conservation. • Developing countries are seeing a rise in thermal waste treatment projects, such as waste-to-energy. • Incineration contributes significantly to CO2 emissions, primarily from fossil-based polymers. • Thermal treatment technologies require scrutiny due to their social, climate, and resource impacts. • Landfills serve as bioreactors for biogas production and ‘resource banks’ for currently unrecyclable materials. • Landfilling and manual sorting are more viable and environmentally friendly due to abundant labor in developing countries
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".