MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2249936247 · doi:10.2175/106143008x390852

Predicting the Degradability of Waste Activated Sludge

2009· article· en· W2249936247 on OpenAlexaffabout
Richard M. Jones, Wayne J. Parker, Henry Zhu, Dwight Houweling, Sudhir Murthy

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Environment Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnaerobic Digestion and Biogas Production
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooEnviroSim (Canada)Golder Associates (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRespirometryAnaerobic digestionActivated sludgeWastewaterChemical oxygen demandAnaerobic exerciseWaste managementPulp and paper industrySequencing batch reactorDigestion (alchemy)BioreactorChemistrySewage treatmentMethanogenesisEnvironmental scienceMethaneEnvironmental engineeringChromatographyBiologyEngineeringBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to identify methods for estimating anaerobic digestibility of waste activated sludge (WAS). The WAS streams were generated in three sequencing batch reactors (SBRs) treating municipal wastewater. The wastewater and WAS properties were initially determined through simulation of SBR operation with BioWin (EnviroSim Associates Ltd., Flamborough, Ontario, Canada). Samples of WAS from the SBRs were subsequently characterized through respirometry and batch anaerobic digestion. Respirometry was an effective tool for characterizing the active fraction of WAS and could be a suitable technique for determining sludge composition for input to anaerobic models. Anaerobic digestion of the WAS revealed decreasing methane production and lower chemical oxygen demand removals as the SRT of the sludge increased. BioWin was capable of accurately describing the digestion of the WAS samples for typical digester SRTs. For extended digestion times (i.e., greater than 30 days), some degradation of the endogenous decay products was assumed to achieve accurate simulations for all sludge SRTs.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.199

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations25
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Environment ResearchSame topicAnaerobic Digestion and Biogas ProductionFrench-language works237,207