MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394964283 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2023-0560

Assessment of the suitability of greensand filtration for Mn removal for private wells

2024· article· en· W4394964283 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Vanessa Di Battista, Juliana Smillovich, Debra Hausladen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHeavy metals in environment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsFiltration (mathematics)Environmental scienceGeologyPetroleum engineeringEnvironmental engineeringGeotechnical engineeringPulp and paper industryWaste managementChemistryEngineeringMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Greensand filtration is a common treatment option for manganese, sulfide, and iron removal; poor maintenance, however, can compromise effectiveness and even lead to increased post-treatment Mn concentrations. A private drinking-water well in exceedance of Health Canada’s maximum allowable concentration for Mn was sampled over a 1-year period to assess Mn removal via greensand filtration. Mn concentrations post-treatment were on average twofold higher than raw well water prior to media change. Reducing conditions, evidenced by negative oxidation–reduction potential (ORP) of the effluent, were central to generating soluble Mn(II). Monitoring revealed that water usage patterns caused variability in post-treatment Mn, with peak concentrations (>3.5× higher than influent water) observed after a 7-day idle period. As inadequate oxidant addition can lead to reducing conditions, monitoring ORP may facilitate proxy surveillance for Mn release. Findings underscore the importance of human factors (e.g., aesthetic concerns, barriers to maintenance, perceived risk) when evaluating overall benefits and drawbacks of treatment systems.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicHeavy metals in environmentFrench-language works237,207