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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the work of the IWA Task Group on Benchmarking of Control Strategies for wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) is coming to an end, it is essential to disseminate the knowledge gained. For this reason, all authors of the IWA Scientific and Technical Report on benchmarking have come together to provide their insights, highlighting areas where knowledge may still be deficient and where new opportunities are emerging, and to propose potential avenues for future development and application of the general benchmarking framework and its associated tools. The paper focuses on the topics of temporal and spatial extension, process modifications within the WWTP, the realism of models, control strategy extensions and the potential for new evaluation tools within the existing benchmark system. We find that there are major opportunities for application within all of these areas, either from existing work already being done within the context of the benchmarking simulation models (BSMs) or applicable work in the wider literature. Of key importance is increasing capability, usability and transparency of the BSM package while avoiding unnecessary complexity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it