Comparing crushed recycled glass to silica sand for dual media filtration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this project was to evaluate the performance of a pressure filter utilizing crushed glass as the filter media in a dual media anthraciteglass filter compared to a dual media anthracitesand filter. In general, the particle removal capabilities of the crushed-glass filter were slightly poorer than those of a sand filter, as quantified in a field application in the community of Orangedale, Nova Scotia. It was found that the crushed glass used in this project had a higher angularity and slightly higher uniformity coefficient then the sand tested. After 6 months of use the crushed-glass filter was able to produce a filter effluent of 5070 particles/mL (diameter >2 μμm), which is greater than the 2550 particles/mL (diameter >2 μμm) that was produced by sand filter. Over the course of the 6-month study the dual media crushed-glass filter was able to achieve a 1.4-log removal, which was only slightly greater than the dual media silica sand filter that achieved a 1.6-log removal of particles with diameters >2 μμm. Key words: filtration, drinking water, recycled glass, sustainability, particle counting.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".