MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Bioaugmentation with Nitrifying Bacteria Acclimated to Different Temperatures

2005· article· en· W2160217942 on OpenAlexaff
Melanie A. Head, Jan A. Oleszkiewicz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Engineering · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen Removal
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNitrificationNitrifying bacteriaBioaugmentationHydraulic retention timeSeedingChemistrySequencing batch reactorPulp and paper industryBiomass (ecology)Environmental engineeringEnvironmental chemistryEnvironmental scienceWastewaterBacteriaBiologyAgronomyNitrogenMicroorganism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A nitrifying biomass was produced from anaerobic sludge dewatering liquors for the purpose of bioaugmentation of sequencing batch reactors (SBRs). Nitrification of centrate was conducted at four temperatures (10, 20, 25, and 30°C) while the seeded SBRs were operated at 10°C with a solids retention time of approximately 4 days. The SBRs did not exhibit any nitrification before the onset of seeding. When the hydraulic retention time (HRT) was 24 h, partial removal of NH3–N occurred when seed acclimated to 20, 25, and 30°C was added. When the HRT was 12 h, only the SBR seeded with nitrifying biomass acclimated to 10°C achieved 50% NH3–N removal. Complete removal of NH3–N was not achieved in any of the seeded SBRs. The degree of NH3–N removal in the seeded SBRs was dependent on the initial temperature of the seed, and the observed growth rates of the nitrifying bacteria were inversely proportional to the change in temperature.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.177 · 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

Citations22
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental EngineeringSame topicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen RemovalFrench-language works237,207