MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213262164 · doi:10.24124/2021/59237

Development of effective and low-cost water treatment method for micro systems in British Columbia, Canada

2021· dissertation· en· W4213262164 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zawad Abedin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWastewater Treatment and Reuse
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRaw waterWater treatmentWater supplyEnvironmental scienceManganeseSample (material)Filtration (mathematics)Portable water purificationEnvironmental engineeringWaste managementClean waterCost effectivenessProcess engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringOperations managementChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, an effective and low-cost water treatment system is developed. At first, an investigation combining published literature, available information through different health regions and raw water sample data from participating communities was done. Through that investigation, a critical water contamination problem, experienced by the rural, remote, First Nation communities was identified, which is Manganese. Then a treatment system was developed to effectively remove Manganese from the source water. Greensand plus was used as a filtration media and the prototype was designed to best suit the need of the community residents to remove Manganese in raw water. The lab scale and prototype experiments were designed using design expert software; adsorption isotherm and kinetics study were also conducted. The prototype was able to reach a removal efficiency 96.50% which can effectively treat source water levels found in the raw water sample. Therefore, a fit-for-purpose solution is developed to remove Manganese from raw water, which is cost effective, easy to use and maintain. Cost effectiveness is demonstrated through comparison of the developed system with available typical clean water supply strategies.

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 score0.356
Threshold uncertainty score0.667

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.211 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWastewater Treatment and ReuseFrench-language works237,207