MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7087978658 · doi:10.1680/jwarm.24.00010

A pre and post analysis of food and carbon flows of a surplus food café initiative

2025· article· en· W7087978658 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Waste and Resource Management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicArduino and IoT Applications
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood wasteEconomic surplusGreenhouse gasLeverage (statistics)Food industryRedistribution (election)Food supplyFood systems

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Food waste is a systemic issue augmented by the retail and eatery sectors of the food supply chain. Surplus food redistribution can alleviate the volume of food sent to landfill or compost, and simultaneously offset greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with food waste. The Rediscovery Centre Food Rescue Café is a pilot programme trialling a surplus food business model, with this research comparing incoming food, residual food waste, and GHG flows before and during the initiative. There was no significant difference in residual food waste produced, and there were GHG savings associated with surplus food use. This finding implies that incoming surplus food does not affect café waste quantity, although the café appears to utilise edible waste more efficiently than previously. The GHG savings from consuming surplus food was estimated at −13.51 kgCO2e/kg, and this will only increase as the café operates with greater quantities and food types of surplus food. Furthermore, surplus eateries like the Food Rescue Café can be an effective leverage point to create a more socially inclusive circular bioeconomy in Ireland through connecting people and communities with nutritional surplus food. Therefore, a surplus food model appears environmentally and socially sustainable.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.332
Threshold uncertainty score0.382

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Waste and Resource ManagementSame topicArduino and IoT ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207