MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158417574 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.1084663

A Condition Rating System For Wastewater Treatment Plants Infrastructures

2009· article· en· W2158417574 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndustrial Automation and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWastewaterRating systemEnvironmental scienceSewage treatmentWaste managementEnvironmental engineeringEngineeringEnvironmental economicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Statistics Canada stated that the wastewater treatment facilities in most provinces are aging and passes 63% of their useful life in 2007 the highest ratio among public infrastructure assets. Currently, there is no standard condition rating system for wastewater treatment plants that give a specific rating index that describe the physical integrity of different infrastructure elements in the treatment plant and its environmental performance. The main objective of this study is to develop a condition-rating index for wastewater treatment plants mainly activated sludge systems. The proposed WWTP CRI, is based on dividing the treatment plant into its three treatment phases; primary phase, secondary phase and the tertiary phase. The condition-rating index will reflect the infrastructures state for each phase, mainly tanks, pipes, blowers and pumps.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.718
Threshold uncertainty score0.906

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.218
Teacher spread0.198 · 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