Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study summarizes major sources of organic wastes in the Detroit region to (1) characterize target feedstock magnitudes and distribution in support of techno-economic analysis (TEA), and (2) guide the design of blended feedstock conversion experiments using hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL). Feedstocks considered in this review include municipal wastewater sludge solids (untreated) and scum; bulk municipal solid waste (MSW); the organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OF-MSW); residential food waste, non-residential food waste including institutional, industrial, and commercial (IIC) sources; confined animal manures (i.e., lactating dairy, feedlot beef, and market swine); waste fats, oils and greases (FOG); agricultural residues; forest residues. The scope of the investigation was limited to existing modeled or publicly available reporting datasets. Bulk MSW data were only collected for context and to generate estimates of OF-MSW by waste type and should not be included in total organic waste estimates. Because the TEA analysis boundary was not defined prior to conducting the resource assessment, the data are summarized within six spatial contexts (boundaries), including (1) city of Detroit (census); (2) Great Lakes Water Authority (GLWA) service area; “Tri-county” urban area (census); “Metro” Detroit-Warren-Dearborn Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) (census); Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor Combined Statistical Area (CSA) (census); and the Michigan Councils of Government (COG) Region-1. All of the spatial contexts are entirely within the State of Michigan, and some overlap one another. A broader context could be developed to include data from surrounding states or Canada.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".