MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088619904 · doi:10.2495/sdp-v2-n1-1-11

Problems and perspectives concerning reclaimed water reuse in urban and agricultural areas

2007· article· en· W2088619904 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mariachiara Zanetti, Silvia Fiore

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWastewater Treatment and Reuse
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReclaimed waterReuseEnvironmental planningAgricultureEnvironmental scienceWater resource managementBusinessEnvironmental engineeringEngineeringWaste managementGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reclaimed water reuse is at present encouraged throughout the world with regulations and international agency guidelines.This reuse allows the saving of water resources, a reduction in the use of high value resources for nonpotable purposes and a lower impact of discharged water on rivers.The technological perspectives for water reuse involves the evaluation of the quality standards that are required for different uses, the treatment, transport and distribution costs, and the benefits that can be obtained from the reduction of supply costs for the users.Four significant experiences in refining treatments, performed on reclaimed municipal and industrial wastewaters in the Piedmont area (Northwest Italy), are proposed in this work: a plant in a big town area (SMAT, Castiglione Torinese, Turin), a plant in an industrial area (SMAT, Collegno, Turin), and two plants in a mixed agriculturalindustrial context (AMIAS, Novi Ligure and Cassano Spinola, Alessandria).The four plants have developed different refining technologies, and therefore obtained different effluent qualities, with different treatment costs.The potential users of the refined water from the four plants were carefully evaluated, with particular reference to industrial activities and also considering agricultural reuse, and an economic analysis was performed.The reuse of reclaimed water for nonpotable purposes is a valid solution in case of resource shortages and it is an alternative to the aqueduct supply that has undeniable environmental benefits.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and PlanningSame topicWastewater Treatment and ReuseFrench-language works237,207