MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2412070932 · doi:10.2166/wst.2004.0151

Modelling carbon oxidation in pulp mill activated sludge systems: calibration of Activated Sludge Model No 3

2004· article· en· W2412070932 on OpenAlexafffund
Pablo Andres Barañao, Eric R. Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Science & Technology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen Removal
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersComisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y TecnológicaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsActivated sludgeActivated sludge modelWastewaterPaper millEffluentPulp millSewage treatmentActivated carbonWaste managementPulp and paper industryPulp (tooth)Environmental scienceChemistryEnvironmental engineeringEngineeringAdsorption

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Activated Sludge Model No 3 (ASM3) was chosen to model an activated sludge system treating effluents from a mechanical pulp and paper mill. The high COD concentration and the high content of readily biodegradable substrates of the wastewater make this model appropriate for this system. ASM3 was calibrated based on batch respirometric tests using fresh wastewater and sludge from the treatment plant, and on analytical measurements of COD, TSS and VSS. The model, developed for municipal wastewater, was found suitable for fitting a variety of respirometric batch tests, performed at different temperatures and food to microorganism ratios (F/M). Therefore, a set of calibrated parameters, as well as the wastewater COD fractions, was estimated for this industrial wastewater. The majority of the calibrated parameters were in the range of those found in the literature.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Science & TechnologySame topicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen RemovalFrench-language works237,207