Prevalence of plastic waste as a household fuel in low-income communities of the Global South (Stata Codes)
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anecdotal evidence suggests that households burn plastics to manage waste and help satisfy their energy demand. To examine the prevalence, extent and reasons for use of plastic waste as household fuel, we conducted a survey with 1,018 key informants from cities in 26 countries in the Global South. Informants are purposively selected due to their familiarity with the living conditions in their communities. One-third of respondents reported being aware of plastic waste burning, with some reporting that their households engaged in this practice. Analyses of the data reveal significant correlations of plastic waste burning with both supply factors, such as , massive amount of plastic waste, and expensive clean fuels, and demand factors, including self-management of waste and energy needs. Expanding essential public waste management services and implementing programs that enhance the affordability of clean energy technologies, especially among marginalised and low-income communities, could reduce this health- and environment-damaging practice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it