MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007687190 · doi:10.2166/wst.2010.912

New framework for standardized notation in wastewater treatment modelling

2010· article· en· W2007687190 on OpenAlexafffund
Lluís Corominas, Leiv Rieger, I. Takács, GA Ekama, Hélène Hauduc, Peter A. Vanrolleghem, Adrian Oehmen, Krist V. Gernaey, Mark C.M. van Loosdrecht, Yves Comeau

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Science & Technology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen Removal
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalEnviroSim (Canada)Université Laval
FundersGeneralitat de CatalunyaUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignGovernment of Canada
KeywordsNotationComputer scienceContext (archaeology)DocumentationField (mathematics)Process (computing)Variable (mathematics)Programming languageMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many unit process models are available in the field of wastewater treatment. All of these models use their own notation, causing problems for documentation, implementation and connection of different models (using different sets of state variables). The main goal of this paper is to propose a new notational framework which allows unique and systematic naming of state variables and parameters of biokinetic models in the wastewater treatment field. The symbols are based on one main letter that gives a general description of the state variable or parameter and several subscript levels that provide greater specification. Only those levels that make the name unique within the model context are needed in creating the symbol. The paper describes specific problems encountered with the currently used notation, presents the proposed framework and provides additional practical examples. The overall result is a framework that can be used in whole plant modelling, which consists of different fields such as activated sludge, anaerobic digestion, sidestream treatment, membrane bioreactors, metabolic approaches, fate of micropollutants and biofilm processes. The main objective of this consensus building paper is to establish a consistent set of rules that can be applied to existing and most importantly, future models. Applying the proposed notation should make it easier for everyone active in the wastewater treatment field to read, write and review documents describing modelling projects.

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)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0140.016
Open science0.0070.007
Research integrity0.0050.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations83
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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