MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Air Space in Composting Research: A Literature Review

2008· review· en· W1968325168 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCompost Science & Utilization · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicComposting and Vermicomposting Techniques
Canadian institutionsWorkers Compensation Board of AlbertaUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepresentation (politics)Basis (linear algebra)Space (punctuation)Matrix (chemical analysis)Work (physics)Computer scienceEnvironmental scienceProcess engineeringMechanical engineeringEngineeringMathematicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Free air space (FAS), as a representation of the available air filled voids in a composting matrix, is considered an important parameter to define optimum substrate conditions for gas transfer. However, this parameter has been determined, interpreted, and employed in several ways by researchers. On this basis, the objective of this paper is to review the previous work related to the application of FAS in composting, providing information about the FAS concept and its importance for composting research. Also, relevant details of the methods currently used for FAS measurement and estimation are discussed. Other aspects of this review are FAS management in composting and its implications for physical and numerical models. In this way, the presented discussion provides a basis to understand the FAS concept and its potential application to future research.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.356
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.099 · 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