MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2611253073

Enhancing Anaerobic Digestion of Pulp and Paper Mill Biosludge Using Thermal Treatment in a Bench-Scale System

2015· dissertation· en· W2611253073 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Xian Meng Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace (University of Toronto) · 2015
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnaerobic Digestion and Biogas Production
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Ontario
KeywordsAnaerobic digestionPaper millPulp and paper industryWaste managementEnvironmental sciencePulp (tooth)MillChemistryEngineeringMechanical engineeringMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Enhancing Anaerobic Digestion of Pulp and Paper Mill Biosludge Using Thermal Treatment in a Bench-Scale System Masters of Applied Science 2015 Xian Meng Huang Department of Chemical Engineering and Applied Chemistry, University of Toronto This study examines the feasibility of using a bench-scale anaerobic digestion (AD) system to treat pulp and paper mill biosludge. Three thermal treatment methods were studied: pre-treatment, intermediate treatment and post treatment. Thermal pre-treatment of biosludge resulted in overloading of the bench-scale reactor, causing the pH to drop significantly; this in turn caused reactor acidification. Intermediate thermal treatment of digestate had a positive impact on the digestibility of the biosludge; the specific methane yield increased by 76% and 29% in two separate bench-scale experiments. Post-treatment of digestate followed by further digestion was studied in BMP tests, and it was determined that the final specific methane yield increased by 43%. Overall, anaerobic digestion of pulp and paper mill biosludge has been proven to be successful at the bench-scale level, and thermal post-treatment methods have been shown to be effective at enhancing the digestibility of the biosludge.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.781
Threshold uncertainty score0.933

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreOther · Empirical

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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace (University of Toronto)Same topicAnaerobic Digestion and Biogas ProductionFrench-language works237,207