MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146259512 · doi:10.1139/l00-100

New technologies for on-site domestic and agricultural wastewater treatment

2001· article· en· W2146259512 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Douglas M. Joy, Claude Weil, Anna Crolla, Shelly Bonte-Gelok

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicConstructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWastewaterSewage treatmentEffluentEnvironmental scienceAgricultureRural areaEnvironmental planningWetlandSurface runoffEnvironmental engineeringWaste managementWater resource managementEngineeringGeographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently publicized problems of water quality in rural parts of Canada are again bringing increasing attention to methods of dealing with wastewater in rural environments. This includes wastewater from both domestic (principally single-family homes) and agricultural sources. Previous practices which relied on dispersal with little treatment are increasingly unacceptable not only because of the recognition of the weakness of this approach but also because of the increasing intensification of land use in rural areas. Thus the need for additional and improved technologies for treating wastewater, on site, has increased. Because of this, new technologies have been developed which provide better treatment than previous approaches that also rely on natural processes. Examples of the former include peat, sand, and foam filters for domestic on-site wastewater systems. Engineered wetlands to treat barnyard runoff or rural municipal lagoon effluent is an example of a technology using natural processes. This paper describes some of these new technologies and their potential advantages.Key words: rural, wastewater, septic, manure, farm, on site, technologies.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.170 · 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
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

Citations4
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicConstructed Wetlands for Wastewater TreatmentFrench-language works237,207