MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2991983192 · doi:10.2175/193864710798208728

Modeling Nitrogen Removal, Including Greenhouse Gas, for a Biofiltration Wastewater Treatment Plant

2010· article· en· W2991983192 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Guillaume Samie, Jean Bernier, Vincent Rocher, Paul Lessard

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Water Environment Federation · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen Removal
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiofilterDenitrificationWastewaterGreenhouse gasBiosolidsSewage treatmentEnvironmental scienceNitrificationWaste managementSimultaneous nitrification-denitrificationEnvironmental engineeringGreenhouseNitrogenPulp and paper industryChemistryEngineeringEcologyAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modeling Nitrogen Removal, Including Greenhouse Gas, for a Biofiltration Wastewater Treatment PlantNitrous oxide (N2O) is a major greenhouse gas, heavily contributing to global warming. N2O is emitted from various sources such as wastewater treatment plants, during the nitrification and denitrification steps. ASM models, which are commonly used in wastewater treatment, usually consider denitrification as a one-step process (NO3- directly reduced to N2) and are as such unable to provide values...Author(s)Guillaume SamieJean BernierVincent RocherPaul LessardSourceProceedings of the Water Environment FederationSubjectSession 5: Modeling as a Tool for Biofilm Reactor Design and ResearchDocument typeConference PaperPublisherWater Environment FederationPrint publication date Jan, 2010ISSN1938-6478SICI1938-6478(20100101)2010:7L.401;1-DOI10.2175/193864710798208728Volume / Issue2010 / 7Content sourceResiduals and Biosolids ConferenceFirst / last page(s)401 - 413Copyright2010Word count202Subject keywordsWastewater treatmentbiofilterdenitrificationnitrous oxidemodeling

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.601

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Water Environment FederationSame topicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen RemovalFrench-language works237,207