MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020291964 · doi:10.2166/wst.2012.004

Comparison of methane production by co-digesting fruit and vegetable waste with first stage and second stage anaerobic digester sludge from a two stage digester

2012· article· en· W2020291964 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Science & Technology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnaerobic Digestion and Biogas Production
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnaerobic exercisePulp and paper industryMethaneAnaerobic digestionWaste managementSewage sludgeEnvironmental scienceChemistrySewage treatmentEnvironmental engineeringBiologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fruit and vegetable waste (FVW) was co-digested with first stage (FSS) and second stage anaerobic digester sludge (SSS) separately, over the course of 10 days, in batch reactors. Addition of FVW significantly increased the methane production in both sludges. After 10 days of digestion FSS + FVW produced 514 ± 57 L CH(4) kg VS(-1)(added) compared with 392 ± 16 L CH(4) for the SSS + FVW. The increased methane yield was most likely due to the higher inoculum substrate ratio of the FSS. The final VS and COD contents of the sewer sludge and FVW mixtures were not significantly different from the control values suggesting that all of the FVW added was degraded within 10 days. It is recommended that FVW be added to the first stage of the anaerobic digester in order to maximize methane generation.

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.

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 score0.239
Threshold uncertainty score0.813

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.239 · 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