MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033215691 · doi:10.2166/wst.2013.158

Rethinking wastewater characterisation methods for activated sludge systems – a position paper

2013· article· en· W2033215691 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 · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen Removal
Canadian institutionsEnviroSim (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScope (computer science)EffluentInstrumentation (computer programming)Activated sludgePosition (finance)WastewaterBiochemical engineeringSewage treatmentProcess engineeringSystems engineeringEnvironmental scienceEngineeringConceptual modelComputer scienceRisk analysis (engineering)Waste managementEnvironmental engineeringBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increasingly stringent effluent limits and an expanding scope of model system boundaries beyond activated sludge has led to new modelling objectives and consequently to new and often more detailed modelling concepts. Nearly three decades after the publication of Activated Sludge Model No1 (ASM1), the authors believe it is time to re-evaluate wastewater characterisation procedures and targets. The present position paper gives a brief overview of state-of-the-art methods and discusses newly developed measurement techniques on a conceptual level. Potential future paths are presented including on-line instrumentation, promising measuring techniques, and mathematical solutions to fractionation problems. This is accompanied by a discussion on standardisation needs to increase modelling efficiency in our industry.

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 score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.948

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.259
Teacher spread0.244 · 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