MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082995471 · doi:10.1139/s06-009

Comparison of on-site and upstream greenhouse gas emissions from Canadian municipal wastewater treatment facilities

2006· article· en· W2082995471 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Engineering and Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWastewater Treatment and Reuse
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsGreenhouse gasEnvironmental scienceSewage treatmentUpstream (networking)WastewaterEnvironmental engineeringWaste managementFossil fuelLife-cycle assessmentMunicipal solid wasteEnvironmental protectionProduction (economics)EngineeringEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada's ratification of the Kyoto Protocol has focused attention on the importance of accurately estimating emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) from all sectors. An inventory of emissions of greenhouse gases from Canadian municipal wastewater treatment plants was prepared using a life-cycle approach. Both on-site emissions at the treatment facility due to the biological processes used and fossil fuels consumed for energy and heat and upstream emissions related to off-site production and transmission of fuels and the off-site production of electricity for the plant were included. For the year 2000, the on-site methane (CH 4 ) emission rate from Canadian municipal wastewater treatment facilities was estimated at 1600 Mg/year. The total on-site emission rate of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) was estimated at 669 100 Mg/year, but the estimated total CO 2 equivalent emissions rose to 1 048 500 Mg/year once upstream emissions were included. Clear abatement strategies related to more efficient energy use and energy recovery can be identified once accurate GHG emissions inventories are in place.Key words: municipal wastewater treatment, life-cycle approach, greenhouse gas emissions, anaerobic processes.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.192 · 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