MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789795897 · doi:10.5539/res.v10n2p53

Technical and Economical Evaluation of a Fresh-Water Production from Zero-Wastewater Reverse Osmosis System: A Feasibility Study in Jordan

2018· article· en· W2789795897 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tarek Qasim, Mohammed Said Obeidat, Hazem Smadi

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWastewater Treatment and Reuse
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReverse osmosisEconomic shortageWastewaterEnvironmental scienceProfit (economics)Environmental engineeringWaste managementEngineeringEconomicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Jordan endures a shortage of fresh drinking water. Thus, there is a wide use of reverse osmosis (RO) units at homes and industrial zones. Zero wastewater, which is a modified reverse osmosis system, is developed and evaluated to overcome the problem of limited water. In Jordan, for example, Petra Company for Water Treatment Systems was established to mass-produce the newly modified RO units. In this study, a feasibility study is conducted to evaluate the technical and economical aspects of mass production of the new RO systems. With increasing future demand for fresh water, it is expected that the introduction of the new system to regional countries would save huge amounts of water. Additionally, good economical impacts will be achieved as a net profit to the newly established company. This expected extra profit would be set the base for further development to the modified RO system, such as introducing a compact multistage filtration unit. Results of the feasibility study showed a huge amount of water saving per annum estimated by 4.5 million cubic meter. In addition, a half million of Jordanian Dinar (JD) of a net annual profit attained at the current demand of RO units in Jordan.

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)0.003
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 score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.328

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of European StudiesSame topicWastewater Treatment and ReuseFrench-language works237,207