Landfill footprint geometrical design evolution and land surface thermal heterogeneity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The evolution of landfill footprint design and the associated environmental impacts have been mostly ignored in literature. This study examines landfill footprint geometrical shape using four different shape factors, including compactness (CS), rectangularity (RS), stretch (SS), and ease of access (ES) on 99 active landfills in UK. ES had the highest mean value of 0.69, while SS had the lowest mean value of 0.24. RS and CS showed similar mean values of 0.55 and 0.53. The footprints are categorized based on the landfill’s age into “young”, “intermediate” and “old” groups to assess the evolution of landfill design. Younger landfills exhibit the lowest compactness (median CS = 0.52), followed by intermediate (median CS = 0.55) and older sites (median CS = 0.62). In terms of RS, all the sites showed median values around 0.55. The young landfills have the lowest SS with a median of 0.20, while the old and intermediate groups had medians of 0.23 and 0.24 respectively. The variabilities of sites’ land surface temperature were also assessed. This study underscores the role of landfill footprint design on landfill operation and introduces new aspects of design strategies to mitigate environmental risks.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".