MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030925581 · doi:10.1002/cjce.21623

Studies of extraction of methylene blue from synthetic waste water using liquid emulsion membrane technology

2012· article· en· W2030925581 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExtraction and Separation Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiluentExtraction (chemistry)EmulsionKeroseneMethylene blueMembranePermeationChromatographyWastewaterPulmonary surfactantPhase (matter)ChemistryMaterials scienceWaste managementNuclear chemistryOrganic chemistryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A comprehensive study pertaining to liquid emulsion membrane (LEM) extraction process of methylene blue from wastewater is presented. The liquid membrane is made of an emulsifying agent (Monumal 80) with various organic diluents. Surfactant (5 wt%) (Monumal 80) and kerosene gave good extraction. Important variables affecting LEM permeation process include stability of membrane, contact time of extraction, strip phase concentration, treat ratio (strip phase: organic phase), stirring speed, feed phase concentration were systematically studied for percentage of extraction by LEM. Kerosene as diluent gave 99.57% extraction with NaOH as strip phase. © 2012 Canadian Society for Chemical Engineering

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)0.000
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 score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.233 · 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