MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2302481205 · doi:10.1080/09593330.2015.1122095

Treatment of potato farm wastewater with sand filtration

2016· article· en· W2302481205 on OpenAlexafffund
Vera Bosak, Andrew VanderZaag, Anna Crolla, Chris Kinsley, Denise Chabot, S. Shea Miller, Robert J. Gordon

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Technology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Stormwater Management Solutions
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Guelph
FundersOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
KeywordsFiltration (mathematics)Sand filterSaturation (graph theory)WastewaterTotal suspended solidsEnvironmental engineeringChemical oxygen demandFilter (signal processing)Volumetric flow rateAnaerobic exerciseSuspended solidsPulp and paper industryNitrogenChemistryEnvironmental scienceMathematicsBiologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined sand filtration as a component of a potato farm wastewater treatment system. Two different sand filter designs, saturated flow and unsaturated flow, were evaluated at three different loading rates: 34, 68, and 136 L m(-2) d(-1). Filter design had a significant effect, with unsaturated flow sand filters having significantly (p < .05) better total suspended solids (TSS) removal (89%) than saturated flow sand filters did (79%). Loading rate also had a significant (p < .05) effect, given that the lowest loading rate had higher mass removal for TSS than the higher loading rates did. Overall, all sand filters removed TSS, 5-d biochemical oxygen demand, and total phosphorus well (62-99%). Total nitrogen removal was twice as high in unsaturated flow filters (53%) than in saturated flow filters (27%), because of the recurring cycle of aerobic and anaerobic conditions during sand saturation and drying in unsaturated flow sand filters.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.255
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.172 · 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 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

Citations13
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental TechnologySame topicUrban Stormwater Management SolutionsFrench-language works237,207