MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1910370185 · doi:10.1139/l11-018

The effectiveness of slow sand filters to treat Canadian rural prairie water

2011· article· en· W1910370185 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Ann M. Gottinger, Dena W. McMartin, Doug Price, Bruce C. Hanson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Stormwater Management Solutions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSlow sand filterEnvironmental scienceTurbidityWater qualityWater treatmentEnvironmental engineeringModular designPotable waterWaste managementEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The following manuscript provides a technical review of slow sand filters (SSFs) as well as two case studies from the province of Saskatchewan, Canada in which an optimized technology has been successfully designed and implemented to produce high quality potable water for very small populations. Renewed interest in SSF systems for small communities has resulted in enhanced plant and filter design, improved operating procedures for increased efficiency and expanded range of acceptable raw water quality input and an overall low maintenance system design. Despite some limitations to the use of SSFs, recent design modifications and improvements for operation and maintenance of SSFs have expanded their application to a broader range of contaminants under highly variable environmental and operating conditions. The flexible and modular design options inherent to SSF systems, along with the modifications in expanded application, make SSFs highly attractive for potable water treatment in rural and remote regions. The SSFs designed and tested in Saskatchewan are modular polyethylene systems that include pre- and posttreatment processes such as ozone oxidation, roughing, and biological activated carbon (BAC) filters to provide significant reductions in turbidity, heavy metals, colour, and organics.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.654
Threshold uncertainty score0.766

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.159
Teacher spread0.152 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations40
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicUrban Stormwater Management SolutionsFrench-language works237,207