MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047539919 · doi:10.2166/wpt.2010.023

Review of the performance of full-scale MBR plants: design, operation and on-site experimental data

2010· article· en· W2047539919 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 Practice & Technology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMembrane Separation Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEffluentMembrane bioreactorWastewaterEnvironmental scienceSewage treatmentWaste managementEnvironmental engineeringEngineeringProcess engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The membrane bioreactor (MBR) process has become an effective alternative wastewater treatment technology that produces effluent with excellent quality. Globally, a wide range of municipal and industrial MBR plants are in operation, varying both in size and complexity. The objective of this investigation was to develop a better understanding of the long term performance of MBR plants. To achieve this objective, eight full-scale municipal MBR plants were examined. The methodology included a review of plant design parameters, pre-treatment system, biological operation, membrane operation, disinfection system and nutrient removal system. In addition, on-site tests were done on permeate, final effluent and mixed liquor to understand MBR performance.

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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.409

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.262 · 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