MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413513473 · doi:10.47611/jsrhs.v13i3.7490

Navigating Municipal Solid Waste Practices: A Comparative Analysis of the US, Canada, and China

2024· article· en· W4413513473 on OpenAlex
Yingqiu Kuang

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Student Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMunicipal Solid Waste Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaMunicipal solid wasteEnvironmental planningGeographyEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental protectionWaste managementEngineeringArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Solid waste management is a critical global challenge, with approximately 11.2 billion tons of waste collected annually, contributing to 5% of global greenhouse gas emissions (UNEP, 2024). This paper offers a comparative analysis of waste management practices in the United States, Canada, and China, focusing on waste composition, factors driving increased waste, and waste diversion patterns. The study underscores the strengths and weaknesses of each country’s management approach, providing insights for policymakers and stakeholders to enhance global waste management strategies.

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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.384
Threshold uncertainty score0.586

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.350 · 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