MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3045575576 · doi:10.35248/2252-5211.20.10.383

Study of the Physical and Chemical Properties of the Compost Produced from Sawani Composting Plant

2020· article· en· W3045575576 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Salah A Belkher

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Waste Resources · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicComposting and Vermicomposting Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompostOrganic matterMorningFertilizerWater contentChemistryAnimal scienceTotal organic carbonEnvironmental chemistryEnvironmental scienceAgronomyBotanyBiologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, monthly and freshly produced composite (morning, noon, and afternoon) compost samples were collected from Tripoli Organic Fertilizer Production Plant (composting facility). The physical, and chemical properties of the compost were investigated for one year starting from April of 2004 and on results of physical tests indicated that compost was not fully mature and contained higher percentage of foreign matters such as glass, and plastic than the suggested international standards. The average moisture content and water holding capacity were 59%, and 100% respectively. The water extract (1: 2.5) of the compost had an average PH of 6.6, and EC of 14.47 dm/m at 25°C. The average total content of N, P, and K were 0.77%, 82.3%, and 3866.7 mg/kg respectively. The average organic carbon and the organic matter content were 21%, and 37.87% respectively, while the C/N ratio was 1: 32. The average total concentration of trace elements , and heavy metals namely Fe , Cu , Zn , Mn , Pb , Ni , Cr , Cd , As , and Hg were determined , and were generally lower than the levels indicated by the quality control agencies , and organizations in most of the European Union Countries , USA , and Canada.

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 score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.146

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Waste ResourcesSame topicComposting and Vermicomposting TechniquesFrench-language works237,207