MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6940676605 · doi:10.11575/prism/35913

Integrated Waste Model For Northern Alberta Field Accommodation Facilities

2014· other· en· W6940676605 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePRISM (University of Calgary) · 2014
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)Dispose patternMunicipal solid wasteNucleofectionField (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report focuses on the potential for integrated waste management (IWM) at remote field accommodation facilities. A working model was developed to try and interconnect three (3) key waste streams currently produced at these sites: liquid wastes consisting of treated water treatment plant (WTP) and wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluent; solid wastes consisting of municipal solid waste (MSW) from site offices, camp rooms, and cafeterias, as well as solid sludge waste (SSW) and lime sludge from the WWTP; and gaseous wastes in the form of flue gas emissions from industrial operations. The central interconnection point for these material streams under the IWM as proposed is an on-site greenhouse system that serves as a sink for these current wastes – directly in the case of liquid and gaseous wastes, and indirectly via a composting facility for solid wastes. Using Cenovus Energy Inc.’s Kodiak Den and Silver Tip Den field accommodations as a sample facility, the absorptive capacity of the IWM for these wastes is examined. A crude economic analysis is performed and site-specific design work is shown to demonstrate the scale of the proposed IWM infrastructure in relation to existing building in-site. Preliminary results derived from an analysis of waste streams from the Kodiak and Silver Tip Dens suggest that an IWM scheme as proposed is both technically feasible and economically justifiable at the site. The underlying goal of this project was to develop a malleable modelling tool that could be applied by any resource company operating large, remote field accommodation facilities to investigate potential ways to reduce both the operational costs and environmental footprint of these facilities. The systems approach applied here attempts to redefine exiting ‘waste’ streams as ‘material’ inputs to alternative on-site operations and ‘close the loop’ on as many material streams as possible within a given field accommodation system boundary.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.425
Threshold uncertainty score0.855

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePRISM (University of Calgary)→French-language works237,207→