MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W12470447 · doi:10.2166/wst.2005.0567

Anaerobic digestion as a sustainable solution for biosolids management by the Montreal Metropolitan Community

2005· article· en· W12470447 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jean‐Claude Frigon

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Science & Technology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandfill Environmental Impact Studies
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaBiotechnology Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiosolidsAnaerobic digestionGreenhouse gasWaste managementBiogasEnvironmental scienceMetropolitan areaTonneSewage sludgeMethaneMunicipal solid wastePopulationEnvironmental engineeringBiodegradable wasteEnvironmental protectionSewageBusinessEngineeringGeographyChemistryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Quebec Waste Management Policy (1998-2008) is requesting that the municipalities prepare a waste management plan, including a global objective of 60% of these wastes to be diverted from landfill sites by reduction, re-usage, recycling and valorization. Around 5.8 million tons of wastes were generated on the territory of the Montreal Metropolitan Community in 2001 for a population of about 3.5 millions citizens. In this paper, we present different management scenarios in which anaerobic digestion was used as a valorization step, focusing on the energetic value of the methane produced and the reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The four scenarios prepared cover the valorization of the organic fraction of municipal solid wastes, green wastes and excess sludge and showed potential methane generation of 17-140 Mm3 with a GHG reduction of 62,000-500,000 tons of CO2-equivalents.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.228 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations7
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Science & TechnologySame topicLandfill Environmental Impact StudiesFrench-language works237,207