MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083290781 · doi:10.1080/09593330902998314

Evaluation of different packing media for anoxic H<sub>2</sub>S control in biogas

2009· article· en· W2083290781 on OpenAlexafffund
Gabriela Soreanu, Michel Béland, Patricia Falletta, Bert Ventresca, Peter Seto

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Technology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicOdor and Emission Control Technologies
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersNatural Resources Canada
KeywordsBiogasVolumetric flow rateAnoxic watersEnvironmental sciencePulp and paper industryMaterials scienceChemistryEnvironmental engineeringWaste managementProcess engineeringEngineeringThermodynamicsEnvironmental chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the experimental results obtained during the operation of two biotrickling filters packed with 6.7 L of commercially available plastic fibres and lava rocks, respectively. The biotrickling filters were tested under similar operating conditions for hydrogen sulphide (H2S) removal from biogas under anoxic conditions, in order to determine the influence of biogas flow rate and H2S concentration on the process performance and to facilitate process modelling. The biogas flow rate was adjusted to between 25 and 75 L/h, while the input H2S concentration was varied between 500 and 1500 ppmv. The process performance was evaluated by two simultaneous system responses, namely the H2S removal efficiency and H2S loading rate, which were subsequently described by a second-order empirical model and an interaction model, respectively. Good agreement between the experimental results, model prediction and simultaneous dual-response simulation was obtained.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations39
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental TechnologySame topicOdor and Emission Control TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207