MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7037237616

The Dutch WEEE Flows 2020: What happened between 2010 and 2018?

2020· other· en· W7037237616 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUNU Collections (United Nations University) · 2020
Typeother
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Toxicity and Pharmacological Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Electronic equipmentElectronic wasteHazardous wastePopulation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report compares the 2018 Dutch WEEE (Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment) flows to the 2010 Dutch WEEE flows. The main findings of the report are that WEEE Generated increased from 324 kt in 2010 to 366 kt in 2018. In 2018, half of the WEEE Generated which was compliantly recycled. Approximately one quarter is calculated to be non-compliantly recycled, and another quarter was disposed of in waste bins or exported for reuse, or could not be documented. In 2010, approximately one third was compliantly recycled, one third was non-compliantly recycled, and another third was disposed of in waste bins, exported for reuse, or could not be documented. The study provides a set of recommendations to improve the reporting and collection of WEEE.

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 categoriesBibliometrics
Consensus categoriesBibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0160.025
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.188 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUNU Collections (United Nations University)Same topicPlant Toxicity and Pharmacological PropertiesFrench-language works237,207