MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410331813 · doi:10.5430/ijfr.v16n2p44

Adopting Circular Economy Models for Healthcare Waste Management: Issues and Prospects in Saudi Arabia

2025· article· en· W4410331813 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Omar Marfoa Alshamri, Saad Mohammed Alnefaee

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Financial Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare and Environmental Waste Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCircular economyHealth careBusinessEconomicsNatural resource economicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current research explores key determinants of the uptake of circular economy (CE) principles in healthcare waste management in Saudi Arabian healthcare facilities. Data were collected using a mixed-method exploratory research strategy from 165 respondents including healthcare practitioners, waste management professionals, and regulatory officials. Findings show that the key challenges to CE adoption are infrastructural constraints, poor regulatory enforcement, financial constraints, and technological integration limitations. Though awareness of CE principles is present, actual application is low, particularly in rural or small facilities. Smart waste monitoring, automated segregation, and policy-based incentives were identified as main enablers by the participants. Saudi Arabia's Vision 2030 was considered to be promising for sustainable waste management strategies, although gaps exist in local implementation and institutional preparedness. This study contributes new findings to the intersection of healthcare sustainability, national policy, and environmental conservation in Saudi Arabia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Financial ResearchSame topicHealthcare and Environmental Waste ManagementFrench-language works237,207