MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7048729283

Mathematical modelling of composting processes using finite element method

2011· dissertation· en· W7048729283 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2011
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotocathodes and Microchannel Plates
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFinite element methodMathematical modelAirflowInletPartial differential equationBasis (linear algebra)Sensitivity (control systems)Resolution (logic)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Composting is one element of waste management.It allows waste to be transformed into a valuable product.The processes involved and the final product, however, may vary in terms of quality, efficiency or security.Models have been established to represent some features of the composting process, but never all of them together.We hypothesized that all the key features from the literature could be gathered in one model.This model should be qualitatively faithful, reliable, and easily adapted to any situation.We used COMSOL TM , software that uses proven algorithms and the finite element method to solve partial differential equations in high spatial resolution in up to three dimensions.The behavior of this model was studied through parameter variations and sensitivity analysis.Patterns in temperature, biomass, substrate, oxygen and water concentration curves were consistent with the typical curves found in literature about composting.Initial water concentration and airflow were found to have an important impact on the composting process, while inlet air temperature did not.The resolution of the mathematical problem in a two-dimensional, longitudinal cross-section of the rectangular vessel allowed the observation of spatial patterns.This model can be used as a basis for further studies as new features are easy to implement.It can likewise be adapted to any apparatus, which makes it useful for comparative analysis.The suggested model, however, has yet to be validated against a physical system and this should be the next step.iii conditions exprimentales, ce qui en fait un bon outil comparatif.Cependant, le modle suggr doit d'abord tre valid par des donnes exprimentales.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.305
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.214 · 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.

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicPhotocathodes and Microchannel PlatesFrench-language works237,207