MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066317931 · doi:10.1081/ese-100106251

AMMONIA REMOVAL FROM COMPOSTING LEACHATE USING ZEOLITE. I. CHARACTERIZATION OF THE ZEOLITE

2001· article· en· W2066317931 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Science and Health Part A · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicComposting and Vermicomposting Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsZeoliteAdsorptionAmmoniumLeachateChemistryAmmoniaInorganic chemistryParticle sizeDiffusionPotassiumParticle (ecology)Environmental chemistryCatalysisOrganic chemistryGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effects of ammonium concentrations, contact time, and zeolite particle sizes on the ammonium adsorption capacities of a Canadian zeolite were studied using batch experiments. Both the rates and capacities of ammonium adsorption increased with increased concentrations of ammonium in solution. Ammonium adsorption increased significantly with decreasing zeolite particle size for all tests and the adsorption capacities ranged from 14.35-17.81 mg N/g. Also, ammonia adsorption increased with contact time, and it occurred rapidly at the beginning of contact, and then gradually decreased as time progressed. Langmuir isotherm best describes the equilibrium of ammonia adsorption on zeolite. Particle diffusion was the rate-controlling mechanism for the first 4 h of contact. In spite of competition potassium ions, zeolite has shown a great potential for ammonia removal from composting leachates.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.223 · 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