Exploring Policy-mandated Building Design Requirements as an Intervention for Waste Diversion in Multi-residential Buildings: A Case Study of the City of Toronto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research seeks to review a City of Toronto policy which specifies which waste sorting systems must be implemented into multi-residential building designs. The study draws on socio-technical systems and technological fix as theoretical frameworks to gauge how effective the required waste collection systems actually are and how well the users interact with the systems. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine property managers with different chute systems to gauge effectiveness. To expand the policy context, interviews with policy makers of design standards of chute designs in five municipalities were also conducted to explore the rationale behind their requirements. Findings show that some municipalities are starting to move away from technological waste chute systems. The technological chute systems were found to be regularly malfunctioning and needing maintenance and were also used incorrectly by residents—all of which led to more contamination. Efforts to increase waste diversion at MRBs through design will need the expertise of occupants and would benefit from more operational standards to understand diversion technology design flaws.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".