MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W135481597 · doi:10.2166/wqrj.2003.011

Sulfate Removal from Water

2003· article· en· W135481597 on OpenAlexaff
Ashref Darbi, Thiruvenkatachari Viraraghavan, Yee‐Chung Jin, Larry Braul, Darrell R. Corkal

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Quality Research Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMine drainage and remediation techniques
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNanofiltrationSulfateElectrodialysisChemistryIon exchangeWater treatmentEnvironmental chemistryEnvironmental engineeringWaste managementEnvironmental scienceMembraneIonEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Sulfate occurs naturally in groundwater. Concerns regarding the health effects from sulfate in drinking water have been raised because of reports that diarrhea may be associated with water that contains high levels of sulfate. In the livestock production industry, there is a concern that high levels of sulfate in water can adversely affect productivity. Different methods can be used to remove sulfate from water. Proven technologies are ion-exchange, nanofiltration, reverse osmosis, and electrodialysis. A few earlier studies have shown that the use of bentonite/kaolinite for sulfate removal has produced encouraging results. Experimental work was undertaken to examine in detail the feasibility of such processes. Laboratory studies using bentonite showed poor or no removal in the case of high sulfate water. Ion exchange and nanofiltration were found to be very effective in removing sulfate. Ion exchange is likely to be more reliable than nanofiltration because of the sensitivity of the nanofiltration process to total dissolved solids and biofouling.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations46
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Quality Research JournalSame topicMine drainage and remediation techniquesFrench-language works237,207