Author’s Response to Peer Reviews of “Converting Organic Municipal Solid Waste Into Volatile Fatty Acids and Biogas: Experimental Pilot and Batch Studies With Statistical Analysis”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present manuscript [2] deals with the study of the valorization of organic fractions of municipal solid waste through the production of volatile fatty acids (VFAs) and biogas.The article is interesting; in my opinion, it should be revised.Comments 1.The presentation of the manuscript is very poor; the figures are not in the same format.Response: The remaining figures, which included the box plots of VFA concentration, VFA/soluble chemical oxygen demand (SCOD) ratio, scheme of line, VFA and SCOD concentration, VFA weight ratio distribution, capital cost and yearly income, and biomethane content, were kept and reformulated to have the same shape.The figures outlining the kinetics study were deleted. Some of the recent works should be discussed and cited in the Introduction section: [3-7].
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 | 0.020 | 0.169 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 0.048 |
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".