MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969177600 · doi:10.1002/etc.5620190627

A critical surface area concept for acute hazard classification of relatively insoluble metal-containing powders in aquatic environments

2000· article· en· W1969177600 on OpenAlexaff
Jim Skeaff, Katrien Delbeke, Frank Van Assche, Bruce R. Conard

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Toxicology and Chemistry · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRecycling and Waste Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsVale (Canada)Natural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetalSpecific surface areaAcute toxicityEnvironmental chemistryHazardHazard analysisChemistryEnvironmental scienceToxicityOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A method is proposed for determining the hazard identification, based on acute aquatic toxicity, and subsequent classification if necessary, of metals and sparingly soluble inorganic metal compounds. The method is based on establishing a relationship between the measured reaction kinetics of the substance with an aqueous medium and the measured surface area of the substance loaded to the medium. The total dissolved metal concentration at a given time expressed as a function of measured surface area is then compared with an appropriate acute toxicity value, the median lethal effective concentration (L(E)C50), as measured in standard toxicity tests with the corresponding soluble metal salt to yield a critical surface area independent of particle size that will deliver the L(E)C50 to the medium. The critical surface area can then be converted to the conventional 100, 10, and 1 mg/L cutoff points to calculate a hazard identification line that can be used straightforwardly thereafter to establish the hazard classification of any form of the substance once its specific surface area is measured. Further transformation testing of the forms that the substance may be produced in is not required. The application of the critical surface area method to determine the hazard classification according to specific surface area is illustrated by worked examples for nickel metal and zinc metal. Selection of appropriate L(E)C50 values is critical, because different values can substantially change the final classification.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations8
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Toxicology and ChemistrySame topicRecycling and Waste Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207