MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7128421294 · doi:10.34172/jaehr.1423

Intensity of Citizens’ Perception and Behavior Towards Electronic Waste Management (A Case Study, Qom city)

2025· article· en· W7128421294 on OpenAlexaff
Mehdi Nemati, Ahmad Nohegar, A. Daryabeigi Zand

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advances in Environmental Health Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRecycling and Waste Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsNuclear Waste Management Organization
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReuseElectronic equipmentIncentiveElectronic wastePerception

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The growing use of electrical and electronic equipment in recent decades has generated a noticeable volume of electronic waste (e-waste), posing a major global environmental challenge. Therefore, the current study investigated household electronic waste management behaviors among citizens of Qom province, Iran. Methods: The data for this cross-sectional analytical study were collected via a validated questionnaire from 384 citizens visiting recycling centers in Qom. Subsequent analysis was performed using Excel and SPSS software. Results: The was found that only 37% of the respondents perceived the severe environmental consequences of e-waste. In contrast, the majority (93%) were aware of the direct economic benefits of recycling, while 41% recognized the indirect economic benefits. Regarding management behaviors, repair and reuse were the most common strategies (reported by 45% to 94% of the respondents), whereas delivering waste to official recycling centers was the least common (less than 5%) Conclusion: A lack of awareness regarding the environmental consequences of e-waste reduces its separation rate. Thus, decision-makers should incorporate the economic incentives that promote the sale and reuse of electronic equipment into e-waste management plans.

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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.676
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.369 · 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 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advances in Environmental Health ResearchSame topicRecycling and Waste Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207