MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965916287 · doi:10.1081/pfc-120002989

COMPOSTING DUCK EXCRETA ENRICHED WOOD SHAVINGS: C AND N TRANSFORMATIONS AND BACTERIAL PATHOGEN REDUCTIONS

2002· article· en· W1965916287 on OpenAlexafffund
Stéphanie Lafond, Théophile Paré, H. Dinel, M. Schnitzer, James R. Chambers, Alfred Jaouich

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Science and Health Part B · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicComposting and Vermicomposting Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersUniversité du Québec à Montréal
KeywordsCompostOdorFecal coliformAgricultureFecesWater contentBiologyAnimal scienceEnvironmental scienceFood scienceAgronomyEcologyWater qualityEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Composting of agricultural and domestic wastes is used increasingly to reduce weight, volume, and odor; destroy animal and plant pathogens; and improve the quality of end-products to be used as soil amendments and growth substrates. The objective of this study was to investigate the transformation of C and N and the survival of bacterial populations and pathogenic bacteria during in-vessel composting of duck excreta enriched wood shavings. Two feedstocks, collected on different dates, were composted (C1 and C2) in an enclosed hall system equipped with an electromechanical turner. Temperature was continuously recorded, whereas moisture content and bacterial counts were determined twice a week. Data showed that, although the N content of C2 was only half of that of C1, both materials were fully biostabilized at the end of the composting period as indicated by extractable lipid ratios. In the compost with the low C/N ratio (C1), all bacterial populations were eliminated, whereas fecal streptococci, total coliforms, and gram-negative bacteria were still present in C2 at the end of the composting period. Our results emphasize that the composting of manures and other organic wastes needs to be properly managed to stabilize C and N and to eliminate or reduce bacterial populations.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.640

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations16
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Science and Health Part BSame topicComposting and Vermicomposting TechniquesFrench-language works237,207