MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2296439265 · doi:10.4271/2008-01-1979

Research and Development of Operation Technology on the Waste Processing System of the Closed Ecology Experiment Facilities for Circulation of Carbon in an Experimental Closed Ecosystem Comprised of Humans, Goats and Crops

2008· article· en· W2296439265 on OpenAlexaff
S. Tsuga, Yasuhiro Tako, Osamu Komatsubara, Susumu Nozoe, Yuji Nakamura, Kazunori Nishidate, Shuji Fukuda

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMetallurgy and Material Science
Canadian institutionsOptech (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEcosystemCirculation (fluid dynamics)Environmental scienceEcologyWaste managementCarbon fibersEngineeringComputer scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Before a series of overall material circulation in an experimental system including crops, animals and humans, technical examinations for the development of a waste processing system were conducted for incorporating the system to the Closed Ecology Experiment Facilities (CEEF). The examinations are intended to validate the function of the carbonization and incineration processing units which were installed in the CEEF in 2006. Using different mock-up samples, examinations have been carried out to verify the function and capability of the whole system, including the waste carbonization processing unit, incineration processing unit, exhaust gas tank and the exhaust gas processing unit. In an examination using filter paper pulp as a mock-up sample, processing time in each unit was checked. The processing times needed for carbonization and incineration processing were 5.7 and 2.6 hours, respectively. In an examination, using chaff as substitute for inedible plant parts, the carbonization of 400 g of the chaff generated 170-175 g of carbonized substances, and it generated 54-76 g of ash residue in the subsequent incineration process. In the exhaust gas processing unit, satisfactory capability of CO2 separation could not be realized because of the influence of moisture in the exhaust gas. However, several measures to solve these problems were adopted in an experiment in 2007. In the habitation experiments in 2007, wastes discharged from the CEEF were actually processed. The remaining inedible plant parts after using as feed for animals were carbonized in the carbonization processing unit. The urine of the econauts was added to drainage from washing the animal pen; this drainage also contained the excrement and urine of the goats. This combined waste water was dried and carbonized in the carbonization processing unit. The carbonized inedible plant parts, the carbonized human and goat urine and goat excrement, and the carbonized human excrement that was generated by the dry-toilet system, were burned in the incineration processing unit. Gaseous CO2 separated from the exhaust gas of the carbonization and incineration processing units in the exhaust gas processing system was sent to CO2 tanks, and was used for plant cultivation. Moreover, minerals extracted from ash residue produced by incineration were added to nutrient solution for plant cultivation. Equipments for toxic gas elimination of the waste processing system worked efficiently during the closed habitation experiments in 2007. As a result, the maximum concentrations of CO, NO2 and SO2 in the PM were 8.0, N.D. (less than 0.02) and N.D. (less than 0.05) umol mol-1, respectively. And the maximum concentrations of CO, NO2, and SO2 in the AHM were 8.0, 0.06 and N.D. (less than 0.05) umol mol-1, respectively.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper seriesSame topicMetallurgy and Material ScienceFrench-language works237,207