MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Metals Precipitation from Effluents: Review

2008· article· en· W2057238289 on OpenAlexafffund
J. F. Blais, Zied Djedidi, Ridha Ben Cheikh, R. D. Tyagi, Guy Mercier

Bibliographic record

VenuePractice Periodical of Hazardous Toxic and Radioactive Waste Management · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHeavy metals in environment
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsPrecipitationEnvironmental scienceAquatic ecosystemHeavy metalsEnvironmental chemistryHuman healthEffluentPollutionGroundwaterEnvironmental protectionEnvironmental engineeringEcologyChemistryEngineeringGeographyMeteorologyEnvironmental healthBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At the onset of 21st century, the pollution of surface and groundwater by toxic metals continues to represent a challenge for the authorities responsible for environmental protection. The uncontrolled rejection of metals in aquatic ecosystems such as Ag, As, Be, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb, Sb, Tl and Zn, constitute a serious threat to human and animal health. Several methods of treatment of waters polluted by metals have been proposed during the last several decades. However, the technique of precipitation of metals remains the most favorable option on an industrial scale due to reasons of cost-effectiveness, performance, and simplicity. The present review presents current knowledge on various technical alternatives for precipitation of metals. The discussion relates to the individual characteristics of the metal contaminants, as well as their behavior compared to various techniques of precipitation.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations198
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePractice Periodical of Hazardous Toxic and Radioactive Waste ManagementSame topicHeavy metals in environmentFrench-language works237,207