Fractal Analysis of Pore Distributions in Alum Coagulation and Activated Sludge Flocs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The information on floc porosity is essential for estimation of the permeability of the aggregate. The average porosity of alum and activated sludge flocs determined in this study on thin sections of the aggregates was similar, varying in the range from 8 to 9%. Similar porosity of the two different types of aggregates suggested that the permeability of these flocs could also be similar. However, the experimental observations of floc settling rates and floc shape factors did not support this expectation and led to a conclusion that the permeability of an aggregate cannot be estimated based on the average geometric porosity of a floc only. When the size distributions of pores on flocs' sections were analyzed using the concept of fractal geometry, different characteristic values for alum coagulation and activated sludge flocs were found. Larger pore size found in activated sludge flocs allows for more flow through these flocs. Therefore, the size of characteristic pores rather than the average total porosity determines the permeability of an aggregate.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".