Performance of five Montreal West Island home composters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Even if home composting can eliminate municipal organic waste collection, handling and treatment costs, its compost quality requires investigation outside the laboratory. A study was thus conducted to evaluate the influence of the following management practices on the compost quality produced by five backyards home composters in Montreal West Island from June to October 2010: the type and backyard location of the home composter (HC), and the rate and type of organic waste (OW) fed into the home composter. The parameters monitored were compost temperature and final characteristics including trace elements and pathogens. For all HC compost, maximum but not necessarily thermophilic temperatures were highly probable within one week of adding more than 10 kg of OW composed of equal volumes of food waste (FW) and yard trimmings (YT). Top and bottom HC perforations enhanced convective aeration but concentrated OW decomposition within the bottom layer. Fed an equal volume of FW and YT, the final HC compost had a dry and organic matter content exceeding 30%, and 50%, respectively, and a total nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium level of 2, 1 and 3% on a dry matter basis, representing a good quality soil amendment. Clean OW feeding resulted in compost respecting Canadian and European regulations for Escherichia coli and Salmonella, irrespective of the temperature regime. For trace elements, regulatory limits may be exceeded when the home composter is fed ashes and soil. Homeowners must also be careful when applying pesticides to their lawns and gardens and then feeding the residues to the home composter.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".