MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092154688 · doi:10.1002/cjce.5450780319

Treatment of olive mill washing water by ultrafiltration

2000· article· en· W2092154688 on OpenAlexaffvenue
N. Mameri, Farid Halet, M. Drouiche, H. Grib, H. Lounici, D. Belhocine, André Pauss, D. L. Piron

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMembrane Separation Technologies
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUltrafiltration (renal)MembraneChemistryChemical oxygen demandMembrane technologyProduced waterChromatographyPulp and paper industryChemical engineeringMaterials scienceWastewaterEnvironmental engineeringEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Olive oil production requires important quantities of washing water containing low oil concentrations, but classical processes used to recover or to eliminate this oil are ineffective. This study presents a membrane technique to treat olive oil mill washing water using different commercial ultrafiltration membranes: one organic (PCI) and two ceramic (Ceraver) membranes. The influence of the hydrodynamic parameters (transmembrane pressure and flow rate) and the cut‐off membranes on the efficiency of the ultrafiltration process was evaluated, and it was shown the organic PCI membrane could reduce pollution due to organic matter by decreasing the value of the Chemical oxygen demand by about 90%. Moreover, the nature of the ultrafine pore membrane appeared to be an important parameter which may strongly increase or decrease the capacity of the membrane. The membrane cut‐off did not have a strong influence on the performance of the process but if the membrane pores were too large the stability of the dynamically formed membrane decreased at transmembrane pressures greater than 0.2 MPa.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.174
Teacher spread0.169 · 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

Citations40
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicMembrane Separation TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207