MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024910959 · doi:10.2166/wst.2008.013

Characterization of sludges for predicting anaerobic digester performance

2008· article· en· W2024910959 on OpenAlexaff
Richard M. Jones, Wayne J. Parker, Zahid Khan, Sudhir Murthy, Mark Rupke

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Science & Technology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnaerobic Digestion and Biogas Production
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooEnviroSim (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnaerobic digestionBiodegradationAnaerobic exerciseSewage sludgeActivated sludgeChemistryInertWaste managementBioreactorPulp and paper industryWastewaterSewageEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental engineeringMethaneBiologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Batch anaerobic digestion tests of primary sludge and waste activated sludge were conducted for a duration of 123 days to determine the ultimate degradability of the sludges. For primary sludges the inert fraction of the particulate COD that was predicted by the wastewater models could be employed to predict their biodegradability under anaerobic conditions. The degradation of waste activated sludge was adequately characterized for the first 60 days of digestion using a model that assumed equivalent biodegradability of particulate COD components under aerobic and anaerobic conditions. However after 60 days of anaerobic digestion it appeared that decay of the endogenous products was occurring. This could be described with a first order decay function with a coefficient of 0.0075 d(-1). For continuous flow digesters operating at SRTs of 30-60 days, the predicted VSS destruction with the modified model was approximately 10% higher than that predicted on the basis of inert endogenous decay products.

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Citations25
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Science & TechnologySame topicAnaerobic Digestion and Biogas ProductionFrench-language works237,207