MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4243824189 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14644707

The Search For Additional Value From Food Waste Using Anaerobic Digestion and Pyrolysis

2021· preprint· en· W4243824189 on OpenAlexaff
Vanessa Bairos

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversitySciencetech (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigestateRaw materialBiomass (ecology)Waste managementPyrolysisAnaerobic digestionHeat of combustionBiofuelPulp and paper industryEnvironmental scienceTorrefactionMethaneCombustionChemistryEngineeringOrganic chemistryAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rethinking food waste could be an effective means to bridge the gap between local liabilities and finding value from this lost resource. While traditionally biomass has been used as a renewable energy source through combustion, there are more clever solutions. Biomass conversion can undergo both biotechnological (anaerobic digestion) and thermal (pyrolysis) conversion processes to produce end products that could sequester carbon from the environment. To date, both processes are being used independently for a number of energy carriers; however, no research at the moment has focused on converting biomass using anaerobic digestion to produce a fertilizer and extract further value by subjecting the digestate to pyrolysis. In the pyrolysis system, this feedstock is burned creating valuable carbon allotropes used to reshape next-generation energy devices, while removing carbon from the atmosphere. The objectives of this thesis are to determine if the digestate can be a suitable fertilizer as is. Based on N:P:K ratio, the digestate may not be as useful as a fertilizer. The second objective is to use the digestate as a suitable feedstock for pyrolysis in the search of high value nanocarbons. Although, the digestate was successful in being a feedstock, it did not provide insight to high value nanocarbons. Lastly, the solid product from pyrolysis (coke) was exfoliated to retrieve the advanced carbons using electrochemical exfoliation and sonication.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.226
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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 topicThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFrench-language works237,207