MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2241815540 · doi:10.2166/wst.2005.0566

Assessing the environmental burdens of anaerobic digestion in comparison to alternative options for managing the biodegradable fraction of municipal solid wastes

2005· article· en· W2241815540 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Science & Technology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMunicipal Solid Waste Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnaerobic digestionBiogasWaste managementMunicipal solid wasteBiodegradable wasteEnvironmental scienceWaste treatmentMechanical biological treatmentEnergy recoveryEngineeringChemistryWaste collectionMethane

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biological treatment processes including anaerobic digestion (biogasification) and composting are increasingly being considered by waste management officials and planners as alternatives for managing the mainly organic residues of municipal solid wastes (MSW). The integrated waste management model which is based upon the application of life-cycle analysis was employed to compare the environmental burdens of landfilling, composting and anaerobic digestion of MSW at a mid-sized Canadian community. Energy consumption (or recovery), residue recoveries and emissions to air and water were quantified. Scenario comparisons were analyzed to demonstrate that the environmental burdens associated with anaerobic digestion are reduced in comparison with the alternative options. The major benefit occurs as a result of the electricity produced from burning the biogas and then supplying the 'green power' to the local electrical grid.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.282
Threshold uncertainty score0.496

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.285 · 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