MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1593954116 · doi:10.2166/wst.2002.0511

Decay rate variability of active heterotrophic biomass

2002· article· en· W1593954116 on OpenAlexaff
B. Lavallée, Paul Lessard, C. Besser

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Science & Technology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen Removal
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRespirometryHeterotrophBiomass (ecology)RespirationRespiration rateRespirometerEcologyChemistryEnvironmental chemistryBiologyBiochemistryBotanyBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hypotheses of the ASM 1 model state that the specific respiration rate of heterotrophic active biomass is a constant. It thus becomes possible to assess the active heterotrophic biomass decay rate (bH) during starvation. The object of this study is to verify if the specific respiration rate of heterotrophic biomass remains constant throughout starvation, and if it is typical of global metabolic biomass activity, as proposed by the model hypotheses. The decay rate bH was evaluated using respirometric and enzymatic measurements. Measurement of bH through respirometry on various sludges varied between 0.28 and 0.76 d(-1). According to the enzyme and respirometric measurements carried out, a large portion of this value is related to enzymatic regulation. During starvation, when initial active biomass activity is high, down regulation of the respiratory chain results in a decrease in the specific heterotrophic active biomass respiration rate, thus creating an overevaluation of the decay rate as measured by respirometry. Thus a high decay rate used in the ASM 1 model could eventually lead to a poor forecast of biomass production.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations18
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Science & TechnologySame topicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen RemovalFrench-language works237,207