MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057914983 · doi:10.2166/wst.2009.225

Wastewater treatment modelling: dealing with uncertainties

2009· article· en· W2057914983 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 · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater Systems and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelevance (law)Computer scienceContext (archaeology)Reliability (semiconductor)Uncertainty analysisRisk analysis (engineering)Management scienceOperations researchEngineeringSimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper serves as a problem statement of the issues surrounding uncertainty in wastewater treatment modelling. The paper proposes a structure for identifying the sources of uncertainty introduced during each step of an engineering project concerned with model-based design or optimisation of a wastewater treatment system. It briefly references the methods currently used to evaluate prediction accuracy and uncertainty and discusses the relevance of uncertainty evaluations in model applications. The paper aims to raise awareness and initiate a comprehensive discussion among professionals on model prediction accuracy and uncertainty issues. It also aims to identify future research needs. Ultimately the goal of such a discussion would be to generate transparent and objective methods of explicitly evaluating the reliability of model results, before they are implemented in an engineering decision-making context.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.616
Threshold uncertainty score0.310

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.181 · 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