MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081601622 · doi:10.2166/wst.2007.211

Multivariate statistical analysis of a high rate biofilm process treating kraft mill bleach plant effluent

2007· article· en· W2081601622 on OpenAlexaffabout
C. Goode, J. LeRoy, D. Grant Allen

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Science & Technology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen Removal
Canadian institutionsCatalyst Paper (Canada)University of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultivariate statisticsPartial least squares regressionEffluentEnvironmental scienceSewage treatmentMoving bed biofilm reactorEnvironmental engineeringStatisticsPulp and paper industryEngineeringMathematicsBiofilm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study reports on a multivariate analysis of the moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) wastewater treatment system at a Canadian pulp mill. The modelling approach involved a data overview by principal component analysis (PCA) followed by partial least squares (PLS) modelling with the objective of explaining and predicting changes in the BOD output of the reactor. Over two years of data with 87 process measurements were used to build the models. Variables were collected from the MBBR control scheme as well as upstream in the bleach plant and in digestion. To account for process dynamics, a variable lagging approach was used for variables with significant temporal correlations. It was found that wood type pulped at the mill was a significant variable governing reactor performance. Other important variables included flow parameters, faults in the temperature or pH control of the reactor, and some potential indirect indicators of biomass activity (residual nitrogen and pH out). The most predictive model was found to have an RMSEP value of 606 kgBOD/d, representing a 14.5% average error. This was a good fit, given the measurement error of the BOD test. Overall, the statistical approach was effective in describing and predicting MBBR treatment performance.

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 score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.615

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations8
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Science & TechnologySame topicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen RemovalFrench-language works237,207