MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121682536 · doi:10.1139/s07-011

A review of the effectiveness of current time–temperature regulations on pathogen inactivation during composting

2007· review· en· W2121682536 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Kristine Wichuk, Daryl McCartney

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Engineering and Science · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicComposting and Vermicomposting Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of AlbertaU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
KeywordsCompostPathogenBiologyMicrobiologyEnvironmental scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pathogenic organisms can be present in all types of compost feedstocks. Since the infective dose for many of these organisms is very low, it is generally accepted that pathogens should be reduced to non-detectable levels. According to North American regulatory bodies (United States Environmental Protection Agency and Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment), pathogen inactivation is expected to occur if all particles of compost maintain temperatures greater than 55 °C for at least 3 days. A literature review was conducted to examine whether compliance with these time–temperature conditions consistently resulted in production of pathogen-free compost products. Survival of pathogenic bacteria, protozoa, and helminths occurred in a significant number of studies, despite the prescribed time–temperature conditions apparently being met. It was hypothesized that this could either be the result of inadequate time–temperature requirements or of difficulties in ensuring that the time–temperature criteria are met by all compost particles.

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)0.001
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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations155
Published2007
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Engineering and ScienceSame topicComposting and Vermicomposting TechniquesFrench-language works237,207