MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221029534 · doi:10.1155/2022/3265366

Detection and Prediction of HMS from Drinking Water by Analysing the Adsorbents from Residuals Using Deep Learning

2022· article· en· W4221029534 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

VenueAdsorption Science & Technology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMicrosemi (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdsorptionResidualDeep learningArtificial intelligenceArtificial neural networkTest setSet (abstract data type)ChemistryMachine learningPattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contamination HM is an important issue associated with the environment, and it requires suitable steps for the reduction of HMs in water at an acceptable ratio. With modern technologies, this could be possible by enabling the carbon adsorbents to adsorb the pollutions via deep learning strategies. In this paper, we develop a model on detection and prediction of presence of HMs from drinking water by analysing the adsorbents from residuals using deep learning. The study uses dense neural networks or DenseNets to analyse the microscopic images of the residual adsorbents. The study initially preprocesses and extracts features using standardised procedure. The DenseNets are used finally for detection purpose, and it is trained and tested with standard set of microscopic images. The experimental results are conducted to test the efficacy of the deep learning model on detecting the HM composition. The results of simulation show that the proposed deep learning model achieves 95% higher rate of detecting the HM composition from the adsorption residuals than other methods.

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)0.001
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 score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.816

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.226 · 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