MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069228068 · doi:10.2166/wst.2006.143

Fault detection for control of wastewater treatment plants

2006· article· en· W2069228068 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 · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Control Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsHydromantis Environmental Software Solutions (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess (computing)Control (management)Monitoring and controlFault detection and isolationEngineeringProcess controlWastewaterSewage treatmentEffluentSystems engineeringRisk analysis (engineering)Computer scienceControl engineeringWaste managementArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interest in real-time model-based control is increasing as more and more facilities are being asked to meet stricter effluent requirements while at the same time minimizing costs. It has been identified that biological process models and automated process control technologies are being used at wastewater treatments plants throughout the world and that great potential for optimising biotreatment may exist with the integration of these two technology areas. According to our experience, wastewater treatment plants are indeed looking for ways to successfully integrate their modelling knowledge into their process control structure; however, there are practical aspects of this integration that must be addressed if the benefits of this integration are to be realised. This paper discusses the practical aspects of monitoring, filtering and analysing real sensor data with an aim to produce a reliable real-time data stream that might be used within a model-based control structure. Several real case study examples are briefly discussed in this paper.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.552
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.191 · 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