MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1546558018 · doi:10.5539/ep.v4n3p1

On the Characterization of Dredged Marine Soils from Malaysian Waters: Physical Properties

2015· article· en· W1546558018 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zarina Shahri, Chee‐Ming Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Pollution · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical and construction materials studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistério da Ciência, Tecnologia e InovaçãoKementerian Sains, Teknologi dan InovasiUniversiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia
KeywordsDredgingSiltEnvironmental scienceReuseSedimentSoil waterEnvironmental engineeringWaste managementSoil scienceGeologyOceanographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Every year, large volumes of dredged marine soils (DMS) are removed from Malaysian water. Dredging activity is needed to maintain and enlarge water bodies. DMS properties are varies depending to space, time and land uses in the watershed. DMS were also reported to be contaminated with chemical and biological contaminants, making the materials risky for reuse. Information on DMS properties, e.g. physical, chemical and biological properties is essential to the selection of a suitable reuse option. This study is focused on the characterization of Malaysian DMS for beneficial reuse. Three samples from different dredging sites and one sample of sediment as a control were used in this study. Physical properties of DMS from Malaysia water were identified and quantified. The DMS were classified as high plasticity clay (CH), high plasticity silt (MH) and low plasticity silt (ML) for Lumut, Melaka and Tok Bali respectively. The results showed that the DMS from different locations have different physical properties. Thus, the characterizations of DMS with regards of physical properties are significant in decision making either to be reused or disposed.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.151
Teacher spread0.138 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations20
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and PollutionSame topicGeotechnical and construction materials studiesFrench-language works237,207