MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2597400278 · doi:10.7763/ijesd.2016.v7.780

The Effectiveness of Pretreatment Methods on COD and Ammonia Removal from Landfill Leachate

2015· article· en· W2597400278 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

VenueInternational Journal of Environmental Science and Development · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandfill Environmental Impact Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeachateWaste managementEnvironmental scienceAmmoniaChemistryEnvironmental chemistryPulp and paper industryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of this experiment is to evaluate the effectiveness of different leachate pre-treatment options in terms of COD and ammonia removal. This research focused on the evaluation of physical-chemical methods for pre-treatment of leachate that would be effective and rapid in order to satisfy the requirements of the sewer discharge by-laws. The four pre-treatment options evaluated were: air stripping, chemical coagulation, electro-coagulation and advanced oxidation with sodium ferrate. Chemical coagulation reported the best COD removal rate at 43%, compared to 18% for both air stripping and electro-coagulation, and 20% for oxidation with sodium ferrate. On the other hand, air stripping was far superior to the other treatment options in terms of ammonia removal with 86%. Oxidation with sodium ferrate reached only 16%, while chemical coagulation and electro-coagulation removed less than 10%. When combined, air stripping and chemical coagulation removed up to 50% COD and 85% ammonia.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.453
Threshold uncertainty score0.393

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 science0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.280 · 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