Development of a Zero-Waste Management Model in Educational Institutions under Khon Kaen Municipality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to develop and evaluate a zero-waste management model for educational institutions under Khon Kaen Municipality. The research was conducted in three phases. The first phase investigated the current situation, desired condition, and essential needs related to zero-waste management using a needs assessment survey administered to 242 administrators and teachers. Results revealed a clear gap between current and desired practices, with the highest development needs identified in the areas of Reuse and Avoid. In the second phase, a zero-waste management model was designed through expert interviews and focus group discussions. The model was then validated by five experts and rated at the highest level for appropriateness, usefulness, and feasibility. In the third phase, the model was implemented on a trial basis and evaluated by 24 stakeholders, who also rated its practicality and suitability at the highest level. The findings highlight the necessity of a structured approach to zero-waste management in schools and demonstrate that the developed model is both contextually appropriate and operationally feasible. The study contributes a practical framework that can inform educational policy and promote environmental sustainability within the school system. Recommendations are provided for future research to explore broader applications and for educational stakeholders to integrate the model into institutional 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".