Determining the Sustainability of Land-Applying Biosolids to Agricultural Lands Using Environmentally-Relevant Terrestrial Biota
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biosolids, the treated solid by-product of a WWPT, have been land-applied for decades as a means of disposal of an inexpensive form of fertilizer. However, research has shown that many chemicals such as pharmaceuticals, herbicides, pesticides, plasticizers, detergents, or heavy metals pass through the WWTP, often unaltered, and potentially end up in the biosolids. Therefore, a need to determine if the land-application of biosolids has an impact on terrestrial biota exists. In this work, six different organisms were used including Folsomia candida, Lumbricus terrestris, Zea mays, Glycine max, Phaseolus vulgaris, and Brassca rap. It was determined that government protocols were inadequate since they either prescribed organisms not environmentally-relevant or only looked at initial growth stages such as germination and emergence and not at effect, if any, on subsequent generations. Thus, new protocols were developed. Additionally, it was concluded that very little impact was seen on any of the terrestrial biota examined.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".