MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072810395 · doi:10.2166/wst.2008.021

Impact of sludge thickening on energy recovery from anaerobic digestion

2008· article· en· W2072810395 on OpenAlex
B. Puchajda, Jan A. Oleszkiewicz

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 · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnaerobic Digestion and Biogas Production
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaStantec (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMesophileAnaerobic digestionDigestion (alchemy)ThickeningChemistrySewage sludgeBiosolidsThermophileEnergy recoveryWaste managementPulp and paper industrySewage treatmentChromatographyBiologyEnergy (signal processing)BiochemistryMethaneEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents energy balances for various digestion systems, which include single mesophilic digestion, single thermophilic digestion, two-stage thermophilic-mesophilic digestion system and systems at elevated solids content in sludge. On the basis of a sludge flow containing 30 tons TS/day (equivalent to a 100 ML/d WWTP plant) it was shown that a two-stage thermophilic-mesophilic digestion system generated more available energy than single mesophilic digestion and single thermophilic digestion systems. Sludge thickening offered the greatest amount of available energy; however that energy surplus was offset by the cost of thickening. After the cost of thickening was converted into equivalent energy units it was shown that the price of energy is important in calculation of equivalent energy units related to operation of the thickening plant. Sludge thickening may be beneficial from energy view point compared to conventional mesophilic digestion when price of energy exceeds dollars 0.08 CAN kW-hr.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.347

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.215
Teacher spread0.204 · 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