MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977755528 · doi:10.1504/ijetm.2013.054879

Sewage of Tripoli: a review of the current situation and of the future planning

2013· review· en· W1977755528 on OpenAlex
Ghinwa Naja, Bohumil Volesky

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

VenueInternational Journal of Environmental Technology and Management · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWastewater Treatment and Reuse
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSewage treatmentSewageEnvironmental planningEnvironmental sciencePopulationCurrent (fluid)WastewaterEnvironmental engineeringEffluentWaste managementEnvironmental protectionWater resource managementEngineeringEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tripoli represents a major urban area in Lebanon with about 350,000 people in the city, which may swell by additional 100,000 when the city surrounding population is counted. It used to be a dominant agricultural region, but the last three decades witnessed a rapid development of urban construction. The goal of this paper was to present the current situation regarding the sewage disposal, contaminating the adjacent coastal areas. Furthermore, the future planning for the Tripoli area was also examined with specific technical recommendations put forward. It is expected that the wastewater treatment plant, as proposed for the city of Tripoli, will solve the problems related to the treatment and discharge of wastewater. However, the wastewater treatment scheme is not without controversies, such as sludge handling and disposal; odour control; the re-use and/or sea dispersal of the treated effluent, and the high costs of the proposed type of treatment.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.319

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.259 · 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