MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6885986839 · doi:10.14288/1.0435783

Developing a Food Waste Recovery and Reduction Plan (FWRRP) within the AMS Nest

2023· article· en· W6885986839 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Waste Reduction and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood wastePlan (archaeology)Food insecurityNest (protein structural motif)Food safetyFood systems

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The University of British Columbia Vancouver Campus is the site of both food insecurity and food waste. Food recovery programs show potential to address food insecurity and mitigate food waste at the same time. Aimed at the AMS Nest food system within the UBC Vancouver campus, this study assessed AMS Nest stakeholders’ barriers and opportunities towards food recovery. From primary and secondary research, the researchers formulated the Food Waste Recovery and Reduction Plan (FWRRP), a set of strategic guidelines towards the implementation of a future food recovery plan within the AMS Nest during the 2023-2024 school year. This report’s results, strategies, and implications are applicable to anyone interested in understanding the unique challenges and opportunities that present in university campus food systems. Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report.”

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 score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.171
Teacher spread0.153 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicFood Waste Reduction and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207