MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054213427 · doi:10.1089/ees.2010.0243

Errors in Ultraviolet Fluence Calculations Due to Particles in Wastewater Samples

2010· article· en· W2054213427 on OpenAlexafffund
Ray Cantwell, Ron Hofmann

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Engineering Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Water Network
KeywordsAbsorbanceUltravioletPath lengthFluenceIntegrating sphereEffluentWastewaterChemistryUltraviolet lightAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Environmental scienceOpticsChromatographyEnvironmental engineeringPhysicsIonPhotochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conventional spectrophotometers that do not include an integrating sphere assembly do not account for scattered ultraviolet (UV) light in a water sample containing particles and can therefore overpredict absorbance. Water samples from the secondary effluent of a municipal wastewater treatment plant were monitored over the course of 1 year to determine whether the error introduced in UV absorbance measurements when neglecting scatter was significant. The error was interpreted in terms of UV fluence that would be calculated for varying path lengths of solution. The error ranged from 10% to over 90% and increased independently with total suspended solids and path length. Combination of increasing path length and total suspended solids, together, amplified the error. This study demonstrates that, in some situations, integrating sphere absorbance measurements may be warranted to minimize significant errors in estimated UV fluences; however, in other situations (e.g., short path lengths), conventional spectrophotometers may be sufficient.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Engineering ScienceSame topicWater Quality Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207