MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393946375 · doi:10.30871/ji.v16i1.7197

Pengaruh Aktivator HCL dalam Arang Tempurung Kelapa Guna Menurunkan Kadar COD, BOD, dan TSS pada Limbah Cair Tahu

2024· article· id· W4393946375 on OpenAlexaff
Siti Khuzaimah, Kharismatun Nafa

Bibliographic record

VenueJURNAL INTEGRASI · 2024
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicNatural Products and Applications
Canadian institutionsWiLAN (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryPulp and paper industryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Indonesia merupakan negara agraris yang sebagian besar penduduknya memiliki mata pencaharian sebagai petani, khususnya di wilayah Cilacap Jawa Tengah. Tanaman kelapa (Cocus nucifera. L) merupakan tanaman tropis yang tumbuh subur di Indonesia dan dikenal oleh masyarakat dan memiliki berbagai kegunaan. Namun, pemanfaatan tanaman kelapa umumnya hanya terbatas pada daging buahnya saja untuk diolah menjadi santan, sehingga bagian lain dari tanaman kelapa, seperti tempurung kelapa cenderung berpotensi sebagai limbah dan kurang dimanfaatkan secara optimal[1]. Tempurung kelapa dapat dijadikan arang aktif menggunakan aktivator HCL dengan metode yang sederhana dan ekonomis. Jumlah konsentrasi aktivator yang digunakan adalah 1N dan 3N. Dengan menggunakan metode adsorbsi dan filtrasi untuk mengolah limbah cair tahu didapatkan penurunan kadar COD, BOD, dan TSS yang berbeda. Pada penggunaan aktivator HCL 1N didapat hasil penurunan COD, BOD, dan TSS secara berurutan sebesar 20%, 23%, dan 73%. Hasil tersebut diperoleh setelah sampel mengalami adsorbsi dan filtrasi selama 2 jam. Sedangkan efektivitas penggunaan aktivator HCL 3N menghasilkan penurunan kadar COD, BOD, dan TSS sebesar 28%, 31%, dan 76%.

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)0.000
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.242 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJURNAL INTEGRASISame topicNatural Products and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207