MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3093584437 · doi:10.1002/aws2.1193

Persistent contaminants of emerging concern in ozone‐biofiltration systems: Analysis from multiple studies

2020· article· en· W3093584437 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

VenueAWWA Water Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Treatment and Disinfection
Canadian institutionsStantec (Canada)
FundersWater Research Foundation
KeywordsFiltration (mathematics)OzoneEnvironmental scienceReuseBenchmark (surveying)BiofilterContaminationBiochemical engineeringEnvironmental engineeringComputer scienceWaste managementChemistryEngineeringMathematicsStatisticsEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Water quality, in combination with design and operational data collected from multiple studies, was assessed to benchmark the performance of ozone‐biologically active filtration in reuse applications. A total of 149 contaminants of emerging concern, representative of multiple categories and chemical structures, were prioritized and systematically compared to elucidate apparent differences in removal capabilities as affected by multiple factors such as influent water matrix, ozone‐to‐organic carbon ratio, empty bed contact time, filtration media type, and initial media condition. The results were consistent with earlier findings for the removal of highly amenable compounds but demonstrate inconsistencies and knowledge gaps across multiple facilities for the more persistent compounds. Analysis of this multistudy data‐mining effort also demonstrates a complicated interplay between contaminant removal and numerous design and operational variables. Hence, further systematic investigation is warranted to elucidate the underlying removal mechanisms.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.261
Threshold uncertainty score0.747

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.216 · 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