MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2346509185 · doi:10.1139/er-2015-0088

Review of biological processes in oil sands: a feasible solution for tailings water treatment

2016· article· en· W2346509185 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Sudipta Pramanik

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Reviews · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTailingsOil sandsEnvironmental scienceWaste managementAsphaltGroundwaterWater treatmentEnvironmental engineeringGeologyEngineeringChemistryGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The bitumen extraction process from Athabasca oil sands ore produces large quantities of toxic processed water as tailings. The oil industry has reduced the demand for fresh water in the extraction process by recycling this tailings water. Continual recycling increases the toxicity of tailings water many times over, and poses a serious threat to surface and groundwater quality. For a sustainable expansion of Canada’s oil sands industry, it is essential to develop a technically practicable and economically feasible tailings water treatment technology. A review was carried out to describe the integral role of biological processes in oil sands history for identifying a successor tailings water treatment technology. This study proposes the application of an entrapped cells system as a feasible solution for tailings water treatment. Bio-augmentation followed by entrapment of the microbial community indigenous to tailings ponds can be a promising tailings water treatment technology.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations20
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental ReviewsSame topicPetroleum Processing and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207