Chemical and microbiological properties of clam processing wastes in relation to national guidelines for wastes as soil additives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With environmental concerns on the rise, clam processing plants in New Brunswick are being asked to dispose of waste shells in an environmental friendly manner. A previous study on clam processing wastes (CPW) showed their potential as an agricultural liming agent. However, CPW must meet provincial (e.g., New Brunswick and Québec) and national (e.g., Canada and United States of America) standards for the utilization of wastes as soil additives, particularly with regard to heavy metal and faecal coliform contamination, before they may be spread on agricultural lands. In this study, the chemical and microbiological properties of CPW were characterized. The presence of faecal coliforms and Escherichia coli in the CPW was below the most probable number (MPN) method detection limit (< 3 MPN g-1 dry weight), indicating an absence of contamination by human or animal feces. Where total coliforms were detected, levels were far below the most restrictive standard for faecal coliforms (1000 MPN g-1, dry weight). Levels of all 11 heavy metals of interest were also below the most restrictive standards applied in New Brunswick and Québec, and below those in the national guidelines (Canada and United States of America). The liming potential of CPW, demonstrated in pot experiments, may therefore be tested in Canada as well as in the United States of America at the field conditions without restrictions, other than the conventional good agricultural practices.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".