MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1532265306 · doi:10.1002/ieam.1481

Regulatory considerations for the potential development and application of metal cleanup values

2013· article· en· W1532265306 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Marc S. Greenberg, Ilse Schoeters, Randall S. Wentsel, David Charters, Ian A Mitchell, Barry Zajdlik

Bibliographic record

VenueIntegrated Environmental Assessment and Management · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHeavy metals in environment
Canadian institutionsGolder Associates (Canada)
FundersInternational Zinc AssociationVale Canada LimitedCopper Development AssociationNickel Producers Environmental Research Association
KeywordsAuthorizationEnvironmental remediationSoil remediationEnvironmental planningEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental protectionEnvironmental resource managementRisk analysis (engineering)BusinessSoil contaminationComputer scienceContaminationEcologyComputer securitySoil scienceSoil water

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article addresses the regulatory issues associated with the application of recent data to support Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemical substances (REACH) requirements in Europe and the use of metal-specific parameters by other countries to generate remediation values for metals in soil. The purposes of this article are to: 1) present approaches and advances developed over the last decade in Europe for the REACH regulation and proposed in Australia by the National Environment Protection Council, 2) review current US and Canadian regulatory practices on ecological soil cleanup values, and 3) evaluate the application of new scientific approaches, methods, and soil criteria development processes used in other countries.

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)0.067
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.092
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.354

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0670.092
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.010
Scholarly communication0.0110.007
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0150.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations10
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntegrated Environmental Assessment and ManagementSame topicHeavy metals in environmentFrench-language works237,207