MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1521101644 · doi:10.1002/rem.21431

Simple Modeling Tool for Reconstructing Source History Using High Resolution Contaminant Profiles From Low‐k Zones

2015· article· en· W1521101644 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRemediation Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicGroundwater flow and contamination studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersEnvironmental Security Technology Certification Program
KeywordsAttenuationSoil scienceEnvironmental scienceContaminationAdvectionDiffusionGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An innovative but simple analytical modeling tool for reconstructing contaminant concentration versus time trends (i.e., “source history”) for a site using high‐resolution contaminant profiles from low permeability (low‐k) zones was developed and tested. Migration of contaminants into low‐k zones via diffusion (and possibly slow advection) produce concentration versus depth profiles that can be used to understand temporal concentration trends at the interface with overlying transmissive zones, including evidence of attenuation over time due to source decay. A simple transport‐based spreadsheet tool for generating source history estimates fit to the profiles was developed and applied to published soil concentration versus depth data from five distinct areas of four different sites contaminated with chlorinated ethenes. Using the root mean square error as an optimization metric, strong fits between measured and model‐predicted soil data were obtained in the majority of cases using site‐specific values for input parameters. In general, significant improvements could not be obtained by varying these parameters. As a result, the source history estimates generated by the tool were similar to those that had already been generated using more intensive analytical or numerical inverse modeling approaches. This included confirmation of constant source histories at locations where dense nonaqueous‐phase liquid was present (or suspected to be present), and declining source histories for locations where source isolation and/or attenuation had occurred. The advantage of the modeling tool described here is that it provides a simpler yet more dynamic method for understanding source behavior over time than existing approaches. ©2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.682
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.193 · 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