Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biofiltration was found to be a possible process for humic acid removal once filters had been acclimated to a synthetic feedwater for 12–16 months. The biofilters were exposed to a synthetic feedwater with influent TOC concentrations ranging from 1.6–4.5 mg L‒1 and a composition of 65% humic acid, 15% formate, 10% acetate and 10% formaldehyde on a carbon mass basis. TOC removals improved from 19 ± 13% (n = 15) to 49 ± 10% (n = 20) in one biofilter and from −11 ± 25% (15) to 51 ± 7% (n = 20) in another biofilter. These increases were found to be statistically significant at the 5% level. The increase in removal was due to an increase in removal of both the readily biodegradable carbons and humics in the biofilters. The humic removal increased from 10 to 36% in biofilter #1 and from 0 to 35% in biofilter #2. At the end of the experiments, formate removals were between 91–94%, acetate removals ranged from 83–87%, and formaldehyde was completely removed in the biofilters. SUVA was not found to be a good indicator of humic removal in the biofilters.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".