Flow-through land-based aquaculture wastewater and its treatment in subsurface flow constructed wetlands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The growing of finfish, crustaceans, molluscs, and aquatic plants is termed aquaculture and it is currently the fastest growing animal food producing sector in the world. Flow-through aquaculture facilities are the most commonly used production system for the culture of salmonids. Flow-through land-based aquaculture facilities place great demands on water resources because they require large volumes of high quality source water to grow fish and they also discharge their wastewaters into the aquatic environment. The main source of waste in aquaculture wastewaters is the addition of formulated feed to the culture structure. Discharge of untreated aquaculture wastewaters can lead to physicochemical and biological degradation of receiving waters. Despite advances in feed quality and feeding practices, the treatment of wastewaters from flow-through land-based aquaculture facilities is a necessary practice. Conventional wastewater treatment from flow-through land-based aquaculture facilities has focused on gravitational sedimentation and mechanical screening of the wastewater, which successfully addresses the particulate fraction of the waste. In the past decade, the use of subsurface flow constructed wetlands (SSFCWs), which treat both the particulate and the dissolved fraction of the waste have been gaining attention for the treatment of wastewater from flow-through land-based salmonid farms. Existing studies have demonstrated that SSFCWs have the potential to successfully remove solids, oxygen demanding materials and nutrients from flow-through land-based salmonid wastewaters.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".