MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2771033558 · doi:10.1080/00207233.2017.1389567

The carbon footprint and environmental impact assessment of desalination

2017· article· en· W2771033558 on OpenAlexaff
Fahad Ameen, Jacqueline Stagner, David S.‐K. Ting

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Environmental Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater-Energy-Food Nexus Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDesalinationGreenhouse gasCarbon footprintEnvironmental impact assessmentEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental engineeringLife-cycle assessmentEnvironmental protectionPollutionEnvironmental pollutionFossil fuelWaste managementEngineeringProduction (economics)Ecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Desalination is an important means to meet water needs in many countries. The existing process is costly and energy intensive and further strains the environment with brine disposal and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This paper describes several factors that are to be considered in desalination plants, such as the use of the land, the contamination of groundwater and the marine environment, the use of energy, and noise pollution. One major indirect environmental impact is the production of the energy required to run the desalination plants, particularly from burning oil, which increases GHG emissions. The carbon footprints associated with sea water desalination plants in the United Arab Emirates are assessed along with the other factors affecting human and marine life. There is no standard environmental impact assessment method, but the World Health Organization has begun work to produce one.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 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

Citations30
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Environmental StudiesSame topicWater-Energy-Food Nexus StudiesFrench-language works237,207