MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989707041 · doi:10.2166/wst.2014.057

Instrumentation, control and automation in wastewater – from London 1973 to Narbonne 2013

2014· article· en· W1989707041 on OpenAlexafffund
Gustaf Olsson, Björn Carlsson, Joaquím Comas, John B. Copp, Krist V. Gernaey, Pernille Ingildsen, Ulf Jeppsson, C. Kim, Liev Rieger, Ignasi Rodríguez‐Roda, J.P. Steyer, I. Takács, Peter A. Vanrolleghem, Alejandro Vargas, Zhiguo Yuan, Linda Åmand

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Science & Technology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality Monitoring Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsInstrumentation (computer programming)AutomationControl (management)Systems engineeringKey (lock)Computer scienceControl systemWastewaterAutomatic controlEngineeringControl engineeringWaste managementElectrical engineeringComputer securityArtificial intelligenceOperating systemMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Key developments of instrumentation, control and automation (ICA) applications in wastewater systems during the past 40 years are highlighted in this paper. From the first ICA conference in 1973 through to today there has been a tremendous increase in the understanding of the processes, instrumentation, computer systems and control theory. However, many developments have not been addressed here, such as sewer control, drinking water treatment and water distribution control. It is hoped that this review can stimulate new attempts to more effectively apply control and automation in water systems in the coming years.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.008

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations94
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Science & TechnologySame topicWater Quality Monitoring TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207