MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2286184498

Resource recovery from wastewater and sludge: modelling and control challenges

2014· article· en· W2286184498 on OpenAlexafffund
Peter A. Vanrolleghem, Céline Vaneeckhaute

Bibliographic record

VenueGhent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen Removal
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsResource recoveryResource (disambiguation)WastewaterProcess (computing)BiosolidsEnvironmental scienceControl (management)Waste managementSewage treatmentRisk analysis (engineering)Environmental economicsComputer scienceProcess engineeringBusinessEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) have been renamed water resource recovery facilities (WRRFs). Our industry is quickly moving from an end-of-pipe environmental protection service to an economic producer of valued products for society. Based on a critical review of resource recovery technologies that are currently applied or in advanced development, it became obvious that most of these technologies are based on physicochemical unit processes (precipitation, volatilization, sorption, …). Current industrial practice for the design and operation of WRRFs is based on mathematical models describing the traditional biological processes. The modeling challenge therefore is to provide practice with proper models for the physicochemical resource recovery processes. The fact that the WRRFs aim at delivering valued products that can partially replace those produced by other means (typically in the chemical industry) leads to a paradigm shift in specifications of the outputs of the facility: no longer treated wastewater and biosolids, but products that have to compete with what is already on the market. The tighter specifications will thus impose a challenge on the process control systems that will be required to guarantee the quality of the products of the WRRFs.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.168
Teacher spread0.153 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations8
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGhent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University)Same topicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen RemovalFrench-language works237,207