MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416541286 · doi:10.1016/j.indic.2025.101037

An analytical framework to quantify municipal solid waste disposal service inequality using three simple socioeconomic indicators

2025· article· en· W4416541286 on OpenAlex
Patience Adjo Darko-Budu, Abul Hossain Nayan, Muhammad Jamil, Amy Richter, Kelvin Tsun Wai Ng

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental and Sustainability Indicators · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMunicipal Solid Waste Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMunicipal solid wasteIndex (typography)Socioeconomic statusSustainabilityService (business)Distribution (mathematics)Household incomeSolid waste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ability of residents in an industrialized nation to afford waste management services is linked to equitable distribution of resources across diverse populations. Landfilling is the ultimate endpoint of all waste management systems, and landfill disposal fees have a significant impact on the financial sustainability and accessibility of waste management systems. This study introduces three indicators: Disposable Income Affordability (DIA), Household Burden Index (HBI), and Labor Cost Index (LCI) to assess the economic burden of disposal fees on individuals, households, and labor in four selected U.S. states. A Borda Count-based method was then used to compute a composite affordability score. Considerable disparities were observed from 2016 to 2023. Florida had the highest mean DIA (961 US tons/person), indicating strong individual affordability. Conversely, Maine recorded the highest mean HBI and LCI values of 1.25 × 10 −3 and 6.70 × 10 −4 ton −1 , respectively, suggesting a higher household financial strain and possible underinvestment in labor relative to tipping revenue. Lower-income states are experiencing up to 40 % higher household affordability burdens. California ranked first with 12 points, reflecting favorable economic and policy conditions. Maine ranked lowest with 3 points, highlighting ongoing affordability challenges. The results underscore the importance of multidimensional affordability metrics that encompass economic, social, and labor factors. The proposed framework offers a replicable, policy-relevant tool for evaluating the distributional effects of tipping fees. The results support a waste management system that is more equitable and transparent across diverse regional and economic contexts. • Three indicators were used to assess landfill disposal affordability in 4 US states. • Tipping fees varied from $43 to $108 per ton across the study areas. • Lower-income states experienced up to 40 % higher household affordability burdens. • Tipping fees grew at widely varying rates, with CAGR between −2.3 % and 8.5 %. • Equitable landfill pricing is recommended for a sustainable waste management system.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.298 · 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