MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071975552 · doi:10.2166/wrd.2014.001

Review of the leading challenges in maintaining reclaimed water quality during storage and distribution

2014· article· en· W2071975552 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick K. Jjemba, W. J. Johnson, Zia Bukhari, Mark W. LeChevallier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water Reuse and Desalination · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWastewater Treatment and Reuse
Canadian institutionsAmerican Water (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReclaimed waterEnvironmental scienceWater qualityLand reclamationDisinfectantWater storageWaste managementBusinessEnvironmental engineeringPipingEffluentProduct (mathematics)Distribution (mathematics)Environmental economicsEnvironmental planningEngineeringWastewaterChemistryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reclaimed water quality has largely focused on meeting standards in the treated effluent. While the focus is well placed, reclaimed water may change before it is used at dispersed locations. Reclaimed water is a perishable product with a shelf life requiring packaging (i.e., piping) and preserving (with a disinfectant) during storage to minimize deterioration in quality. It typically contains higher nutrient levels compared to potable water. Based on an online survey, the challenges were characterized into nine categories in order of importance: infrastructure, water quality, customer relations, operational, cost (pricing), capacity/supply, regulation, workforce, and miscellaneous. The first five categories accounted for 80% of the challenges raised by the industry. A review of the literature provided various remedies to these challenges which can be incorporated into best management practices for controlling potential health and aesthetic issues associated with storage and distribution of reclaimed water.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations31
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Water Reuse and DesalinationSame topicWastewater Treatment and ReuseFrench-language works237,207