MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W143647107 · doi:10.1155/2001/581010

Wasting Away: To Sludge or Not to Sludge?

2001· article· en· W143647107 on OpenAlexaffabout
L. E. Nicolle, M Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnvironmental Justice and Health Disparities
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General HospitalUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSanitationSewage sludgeSewageWaste managementEnvironmental scienceSanitary sewerSewage farmWastingSewage sludge treatmentBusinessEnvironmental protectionSewage treatmentEnvironmental engineeringEngineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following a century of high standards of sanitation, food and water safety in North America are often taken for granted. Recent outbreaks of illness attributed to food and water contamination, however, have challenged this complacency. Now, sludge is added to the list of concerns. Sewage sludge is the muddy substance that remains after the treatment of municipal sewage. This material includes not only human waste, but also household and industrial toxic wastes disposed of in local sewers. Federal and provincial Canadian regulations support the use of this material as fertilizer, within acceptable guidelines, as does the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States. The safety of sludge, however, is questioned by some individuals and groups. Specifically, the risk of infectious agents and toxins to workers or other exposed individuals, and the potential for heavy metals and organic chemicals to be transferred from sludge‐treated fields into crops are concerns.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.014
Scholarly communication0.0030.008
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical MicrobiologySame topicEnvironmental Justice and Health DisparitiesFrench-language works237,207