MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2894829874 · doi:10.2166/wst.2018.412

Grit particle characterization: influence of sample pretreatment and sieving method

2018· article· en· W2894829874 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Science & Technology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicGraphite, nuclear technology, radiation studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
KeywordsGritCloggingAerationParticle (ecology)Particle sizeParticle-size distributionMaterials scienceEnvironmental scienceProcess engineeringWaste managementChemical engineeringEngineeringEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Grit causes problems in water resource recovery facilities (WRRFs): clogging pipes, damaging pumps, and reducing the active volume of aeration tanks and anaerobic digesters by grit accumulation. Grit chambers are built to remove these particles. However, no standardized methodology exists to characterize grit particles for grit chamber design and operation despite the large observed variability in grit composition. Therefore, this paper proposes a combination and adaptation of existing methods to sample and characterize grit particles in view of proper grit chamber design and its modelling to ultimately optimize the efficiency of this important WRRF unit process. Characteristics evaluated included particle size distribution from sieving after different sample pretreatments, organic/inorganic fractions, and density.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.259 · 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