MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413984740 · doi:10.15353/cfs-rcea.v12i2.683

Assessing and addressing food waste in university dining

2025· article· en· W4413984740 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Victoria Funmilayo Hanson, Latifeh Ahmadi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Food Studies / La Revue canadienne des études sur l alimentation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Waste Reduction and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood wasteBusinessEnvironmental scienceWaste managementEnvironmental planningEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Canada, approximately 35.5 million metric tonnes of food are wasted annually, with avoidable food loss and waste costing Canada $49.5 billion (Nikkel et al., 2019). The volume of food waste in Canada harms environmental sustainability and leads to economic inefficiency and social inequality (Soma, 2022). This study at Brescia University College explored methods to reduce plate waste in a university restaurant. Using two research designs, this study first analyzed and categorized all plate waste, finding non-food waste predominantly during breakfast (59.8 percent) and lunch (54.3 percent). Edible waste was highest during dinner (51.0 percent); carbohydrates contributed to the most waste (54.5 percent) and plant-based protein (3.1 percent) the least. The second design involved student participation in waste weighing and completing questionnaires. Results showed a median edible waste of 19.0g, with fullness, poor taste, large portion size, and inability to bring home leftovers as the main reasons for waste. Meal plan students had a significantly higher amounts of plate waste than non-meal plan students (p<0.001). Recommendations include serving smaller portions, improving food taste, and offering storage solutions for leftovers.

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 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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score0.943

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Food Studies / La Revue canadienne des études sur l alimentationSame topicFood Waste Reduction and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207