MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027771357 · doi:10.1139/s06-017

Phosphorus removal in a waste-stabilization pond containing limestone rock filters

2006· article· en· W2027771357 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
T J Strang, David G. Wareham

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Engineering and Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPhosphorus and nutrient management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Canterbury
KeywordsPhosphorusEffluentPhosphoriteTransectEnvironmental scienceStabilization pondSorbentEnvironmental chemistryCalciumEnhanced biological phosphorus removalPulp and paper industrySewage treatmentChemistryMineralogyEnvironmental engineeringGeologyActivated sludgeAdsorption

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study analyzed samples taken along internal transects through a small waste-stabilization pond system in New Zealand that had rock filters installed between the final maturation cells. The aim of the study was to determine the respective importance of the ponds and rock filters for phosphorus (P) removal since routine monitoring from the preceding 2 months had indicated effluent P levels below 2 g/m3 for influent levels around 9 g/m3. Despite the filters being constructed from a reactive sorbent (i.e., limestone) it was found that phosphorus removal was mainly occurring in the ponds. A solubility analysis suggested that phosphorus removal may have been due to moderate calcium hardness levels of around 60 g/m3 as Ca2+, while an analysis of sludge samples in the system suggested that the ratio of calcium to phosphorus in the sludge was consistent with the precipitation of phosphorus as calcium hydroxyapatite.Key words: waste-stabilization ponds, phosphorus removal, limestone rock filters.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.170
Teacher spread0.167 · 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 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

Citations26
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Engineering and ScienceSame topicPhosphorus and nutrient managementFrench-language works237,207