MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2487197528 · doi:10.3233/ajw-160029

A Comparative Study of Pressure Cooker, Ultra-Violet and RO Methods of Water Purification

2016· article· en· W2487197528 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Journal of Water Environment and Pollution · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFreezing and Crystallization Processes
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCookerUltra violetEnvironmental sciencePortable water purificationPulp and paper industryProcess engineeringMaterials scienceEnvironmental engineeringEngineeringOptoelectronicsMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, the performances of the pressure cooker method, the ultra-violet method and RO method of water purification is studied. The performance of any method studied here relates to the production of potable water which meets the World Health Organization (WHO) standards. This comparative study is based on underground water obtained from a depth greater than 300 feet. The results showed that all these three methods yield same level of purity.

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.

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 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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.223 · 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