MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169827719 · doi:10.1139/s04-024

Stormwater runoff from open windrow composting facilities

2004· article· en· W2169827719 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bruce G. Wilson, Katy Haralampides, Sheila Levesque

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Engineering and Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicComposting and Vermicomposting Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompostSurface runoffEnvironmental scienceStormwaterHydrology (agriculture)Environmental engineeringWaste managementEngineeringEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most of the 4000 composting sites in North America employ open windrow composting techniques in which rainfall often comes into contact with the compost. The resulting runoff can leach contaminants from the compost, making the runoff unsuitable for direct release into receiving waters. Stormwater from these facilities is usually collected in a detention pond and treated prior to release. There is little guidance for determining the appropriate size of these runoff detention ponds. One barrier to modelling the hydrology of composting sites is a lack of basic information regarding rainfall–runoff relationships for compost. This note describes the results of laboratory and field experiments designed to estimate the fraction of rainfall incident on a compost windrow that leaches from the windrow onto the composting pad and into the detention pond. The results indicate that approximately 68% of the rainfall incident on a saturated compost windrow will eventually run off. Key words: solid waste management, composting, runoff, detention pond.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.789
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations16
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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