MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065530620 · doi:10.1081/pfc-100103743

SWINE WASTEWATER TREATMENT USING ATTACHED-GROWTH AND SUSPENDED-GROWTH TWO STAGE SEQUENCING BATCH REACTORS WITH REAL-TIME CONTROL

2001· article· en· W2065530620 on OpenAlexaff
Norman Cheng, K.V. Lo, K.H.S. Yip

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Science and Health Part B · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen Removal
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAerationEffluentSequencing batch reactorWastewaterPulp and paper industryChemistryTotal organic carbonSewage treatmentBioreactorCarbon sourceEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental engineeringEnvironmental chemistryBiochemistryEngineeringOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two two-stage sequencing batch reactors (TSSBR), one attached-growth and one suspended-growth, were operated under three levels of wastewater concentration (approximately 4,000, 2,000 and 500 TOC mg/L), respectively, to compare the pH and ORP (oxidation-reduction potential) patterns and system performance. In both TSSBR systems, the pH and ORP profiles varied with organic loading yet exhibited consistent patterns with distinctive features suitable for real-time control. For all runs at the three levels of influent, both systems achieved similar levels of treatment for BOD5, TOC and TSS of over 97.5, 93.4, and 97.3%, respectively. The attached-growth system out performed the suspended-growth system in achieving the same levels of treatment at much shorter aeration cycle times. The treatment efficiency for NO3(-)-N and PO4(-3) was greatly affected by the carbon content in the wastewater, and the best treatment was achieved during the TOC approximately 4,000 mg/L runs with final effluent at 4.0 and 21.3 mg/L, respectively.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations2
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Science and Health Part BSame topicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen RemovalFrench-language works237,207