MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W52612467 · doi:10.2166/9781780404653

Energy and Resource Recovery from Sludge

2012· article· en· W52612467 on OpenAlexaff
Youssouf Kalogo

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Intelligence Online · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnaerobic Digestion and Biogas Production
Canadian institutionsHydromantis Environmental Software Solutions (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResource recoveryResource (disambiguation)Environmental scienceWaste managementNatural resource economicsEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental economicsBusinessEnvironmental engineeringEngineeringComputer scienceEconomicsWastewater

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is general consensus among sanitary engineering professionals that municipal wastewater and wastewater sludge is not a “waste”, but a potential source of valuable resources. Energy and Resource Recovery from Sludge provides essential knowledge on energy and resource recovery from sludge and focuses on: International cases studies of established technologies existing at full-scale with commercial applications, as well as those that can potentially be commercialized are provided Emerging technologies that have been demonstrated only at pilot-scale or bench (laboratory) scale are included. Energy recovery technologies can be classified into sludge-to-biogas processes, sludge-to-syngas processes, sludge-to-oil processes and sludge-to-liquid processes. The technologies available for resource recovery include those to recover phosphorus, building materials, nitrogen, volatile acids, etc. Technical, capital cost, operating and maintenance (O&M) costs information available are documented to the extent possible for each technology. Possibilities of upgrading biosolids pellets produced from sludge as renewable source of inoculum for bio-hydrogen gas production and also recovering of bio-pesticides from sludge are new research areas. This title belongs to GWRC Report Series . ISBN: 9781780404653 (eBook)

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.831
Threshold uncertainty score0.279

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations21
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Intelligence OnlineSame topicAnaerobic Digestion and Biogas ProductionFrench-language works237,207