MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019979093 · doi:10.1177/0734242x06065189

A model to estimate the methane generation rate constant in sanitary landfills using fuzzy synthetic evaluation

2006· article· en· W2019979093 on OpenAlexafffund
Anurag Garg, Gopal Achari, Ramesh C. Joshi

Bibliographic record

VenueWaste Management & Research The Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandfill Environmental Impact Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMethaneLandfill gasConstant (computer programming)Environmental scienceFuzzy logicSensitivity (control systems)Environmental engineeringSoil scienceProcess engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a model using fuzzy synthetic evaluation to estimate the methane generation rate constant, k, for landfills. Four major parameters, precipitation, temperature, waste composition and landfill depth were used as inputs to the model. Whereas, these parameters are known to impact the methane generation, mathematical relationships between them and the methane generation rate constant required to estimate methane generation in landfills, are not known. In addition, the spatial variations of k within a landfill combined with the necessity of site-specific information to estimate its value, makes k one of the most elusive parameters in the accurate prediction of methane generation within a landfill. In this paper, a fuzzy technique was used to develop a model to predict the methane generation rate constant. The model was calibrated and verified using k values from 42 locations. Data from 10 sites were used to calibrate the model and the rest were used to verify it. The model predictions are reasonably accurate. A sensitivity analysis was also conducted to investigate the effect of uncertainty in the input parameters on the generation rate constant.

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)0.014
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations62
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWaste Management & Research The Journal for a Sustainable Circular EconomySame topicLandfill Environmental Impact StudiesFrench-language works237,207