MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7055376395

Characterization and Management of Food Loss and Waste in North America

2018· report· en· W7055376395 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueIssue Lab (Candid) · 2018
Typereport
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Frequency and Time Standards
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood wasteScope (computer science)Government (linguistics)White paperFood systemsFood industryCommissionSupply chainFood safety
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Policies and programs on food loss and waste (FLW) are gaining momentum across North America as awareness of the issue continues to grow. The Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) established the North American Initiative on Food Waste Reduction and Recovery as part of its Green Economy and Climate Change project areas. This white paper characterizes FLW in Canada, Mexico and the United States and identifies opportunities for the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector, governments, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to take action across the three countries. The scope of this research included post-harvest to pre-consumer stages of the food supply chain (i.e., post-harvest food production; processing; distribution; retail; and food service). Pre-harvest food production and the consumer stages of the food supply chain are beyond the scope of this study. This project complements the CEC's North American Initiative on Organic Waste Diversion and Processing, which examines composting, anaerobic digestion, and other industrial processes (e.g. rendering, biofuel) for FLW and other organic waste. The content of this white paper was compiled from primary and secondary sources of information in Canada, Mexico, the United States and countries outside of North America. Primary sources included interviews and email exchanges with 167 stakeholders representing various locations, organization types and sizes, and stages of the food supply chain. Secondary sources included reports, white papers, academic papers, news articles, media recordings and government databases, as well as a review of on-the-ground programs and projects implemented by the ICI sector, governments and NGOs. North American and international experts on the subject matter also vetted key findings during a three-day stakeholder session held in Canada, in February 2017.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.547
Threshold uncertainty score0.902

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIssue Lab (Candid)Same topicAdvanced Frequency and Time StandardsFrench-language works237,207