MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Freeze-Thaw Treatment of Membrane Concentrates Derived from Kraft Pulp Mill Operations

2001· article· en· W2079874714 on OpenAlexaff
Roderick M. Facey, David W. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cold Regions Engineering · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFreezing and Crystallization Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKraft paperKraft processPulp (tooth)cardboardPulp and paper industryEffluentPaper millMaterials scienceWaste managementEnvironmental scienceComposite materialEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Freeze thaw was studied as a waste treatment method for concentration and volume reduction of contaminated waste concentrates that are derived from the use of membrane technology in the treatment of high strength Kraft pulp mill effluents. Unidirectional freezing experiments were conducted to simulate seminatural freezing, in which the independent variables—freezing rate, time frozen, storage temperature, concentration, liquid depth, thawing rate and method of thawing—were examined for their relative importance. Method of thawing followed by freezing rate, rate of thawing, storage temperature, and time frozen were identified as the most important independent variables that contribute significantly to treatment performance. Under ideal conditions, freeze thaw was shown to effectively concentrate and separate the constituent matter of alkaline, extraction-stage membrane concentrate to achieve color removals as high as 73% in the top 70% liquid fraction. The results suggest a new field of use for freeze thaw as a waste treatment process for the management of high strength liquid wastes amenable to mechanical coagulation by freezing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations16
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cold Regions EngineeringSame topicFreezing and Crystallization ProcessesFrench-language works237,207