MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W124451046 · doi:10.21236/ada468536

Field Demonstration and Validation of a New Device for Measuring Water and Solute Fluxes at CFB Borden

2006· report· en· W124451046 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kirk Hatfield, Michael D. Annable, P. Suresh C. Rao

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicGroundwater flow and contamination studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceField (mathematics)MeteorologyNuclear engineeringMechanicsPhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of contaminant flux and contaminant mass discharge as robust metrics for assessment of risks at contaminated sites, and for evaluating the performance of site remediation efforts has gained increasing acceptance within the scientific, regulatory and user communities. Such gradual increase in acceptance and use of innovative technologies is slower in the environmental community, requiring a sound theoretical basis accepted widely in the technical circles and field- scale demonstration at diverse sites. In 2001 ESTCP funded a project (CU-0114) to demonstrate and validate a new monitoring technology known as the passive flux meter (PFM). This device provides direct in situ measurements of both subsurface water and contaminant fluxes. The focus of this project was to demonstrate and validate the PFM for measuring simultaneously the groundwater and contaminant fluxes in contaminated aquifers. This report presents results of PFM demonstration/validation from a series of controlled field experiments conducted at the CFB Borden Demonstration Site in Ontario, Canada.

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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.745
Threshold uncertainty score0.506

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGroundwater flow and contamination studies→French-language works237,207→