Effect of different sediment dewatering techniques on subsequent particle sizes in industrial derived effluent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A paucity of literature has compared geotextile dewatering methods to more conventional dewatering methods (i.e., centrifuge, sedimentation) in the context of how geotextile dewatering performs at reducing particulate matter in dewatering effluent. Particulate matter is the primary source of inorganic and organic contaminants (i.e., dioxins and furans) in an unconsolidated sediment (estimated 577 000 m3) that has accumulated in a wastewater stabilization basin in Nova Scotia, Canada. Physical and chemical properties of contaminated sediment were initially characterized, and subsequent laboratory experiments were carried out for three common dewatering methods: sedimentation, centrifugation, and geotextile filtration. Filtrate quality of suspended solids (number, particle size distribution of particles) was examined for differences based on three dewatering techniques assessed. All three methods provided effective removal of particulate matter during dewatering, but geotextile dewatering could be a more cost-effective and practical solution for dewatering of these sediments.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".