MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2621359783

Control of Emerging Contaminants by Granular Activated Carbon and the Impact of Natural Organic Matter

2012· dissertation· en· W2621359783 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Juan Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada) · 2012
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCoal and Its By-products
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNatural organic matterNatural (archaeology)Environmental scienceEnvironmental chemistryContaminationControl (management)Activated carbonWaste managementNatural resource economicsChemistryEnvironmental engineeringEnvironmental protectionEngineeringComputer scienceGeographyEcologyBiologyOrganic chemistryEconomicsWater treatmentArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research ranked the adsorbability of 115 emerging contaminants by granular activated carbon (GAC) from drinking water, mainly the organic chemicals identified on the Contaminant Candidate List 3 (CCL3), using classical and quantum quantitative structure activity relationships (QSAR). 80% of the investigated contaminants were classified as cost effectively treatable by GAC based on the models. A rapid small-scale column test (RSSCT) conducted with Lake Ontario water spiked with 8 selected emerging contaminants showed the modeling results were accurate. This research also tested the hypothesis that GAC exhaustion for geosmin and 2-methylisoborneol would be due entirely to natural organic matter, and would occur independently of the presence of these two compounds. RSSCT results confirmed this hypothesis. Mathematical modeling supported this observation by demonstrating that the ratio of the effluent concentration to the influent concentration of a trace organic contaminant is only dependent on the NOM loading state at any bed depth.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.174
Threshold uncertainty score0.939

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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.138
Teacher spread0.137 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada)Same topicCoal and Its By-productsFrench-language works237,207