MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982443025 · doi:10.1002/aws2.1160

Sedimentation: Hydraulic improvement of drinking water biofiltration

2019· article· en· W2982443025 on OpenAlexafffund
Leili Abkar, Amina K. Stoddart, Graham A. Gagnon

Bibliographic record

VenueAWWA Water Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Stormwater Management Solutions
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaWater Research Foundation
KeywordsSedimentationBackwashingBiofilterEnvironmental scienceHydraulic headFilter (signal processing)EffluentWater treatmentEnvironmental engineeringEngineeringGeologySedimentGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The performance of drinking water biofiltration systems is commonly measured by the effluent water quality and filter runtime (FRT). At constant flow rates, lower FRTs increase backwashing frequencies and thus lower water recovery and increase the water production cost. This study was conducted on a pilot scale in two parallel trains; one included sedimentation and one did not. Both trains have three matched filter columns. Sedimentation improved FRT by up to 30% and reduced head loss and head loss accumulation rate up to 29% and 35%, respectively. Natural organic matter removal remained unchanged. Adenosine triphosphate levels did not differ, while extracellular polymeric substance was reduced by 36%. In conclusion, sedimentation increased long‐term stability and reliability while reducing the backwash frequency, offering a robust approach for optimizing biofiltration performance. Potential operating cost savings have to be weighed versus the capital costs of retrofitting sedimentation in future studies.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAWWA Water ScienceSame topicUrban Stormwater Management SolutionsFrench-language works237,207