MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007518487 · doi:10.2166/wst.2007.271

Toward an operational dynamic model for tertiary nitrification by submerged biofiltration

2007· article· en· W2007518487 on OpenAlexaff
Emmanuelle Vigne, J.M. Choubert, J.P. Canler, A. Héduit, Paul Lessard

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Science & Technology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen Removal
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEffluentFiltration (mathematics)BiofilterNitrificationEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental engineeringThermal diffusivityBiofilmPulp and paper industryMathematicsChemistryStatisticsEngineeringThermodynamicsNitrogenPhysicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work deals with the methodology put in place to fit and validate the parameters of a biofiltration model (BAF) in tertiary nitrification treatment and dynamic conditions. For an average loading rate of 0.65 kg NH4-N/m(3) media/d, different time loading rates are applied inside a filtration-backwash run using a semi-industrial pilot. Comparisons between predicted and observed values on the NH4-N, NO3-N and TSS in treated water and the total head loss deltaP are carried out firstly using default values of BAF parameters. Model predictions overestimate values measured but trends are well reproduced. A sensitivity analysis is carried out and the hierarchy of BAF parameters has been set up classifying them into strong and low influence on the effluent concentrations. Among parameters revealing the strongest influence are those of the filtration module and the mean density of biofilm for the TSS effluent and the total AP, the specific autotrophic growth rate, the maximum biofilm thickness and the reduction coefficient of diffusivity in the biofilm for the NH4-N, NO3-N effluent. Finally, this classification leads to setting a calibration procedure, thanks to specific experimental tests directly measuring some BAF parameters.

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 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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score0.399

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations9
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Science & TechnologySame topicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen RemovalFrench-language works237,207