MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994129061 · doi:10.1021/es101492x

Proactive Screening Approach for Detecting Groundwater Contaminants along Urban Streams at the Reach-Scale

2010· article· en· W1994129061 on OpenAlexaffabout
James W. Roy, Greg Bickerton

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Science & Technology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicGroundwater flow and contamination studies
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGroundwaterEnvironmental scienceContaminationSTREAMSUrban streamBTEXEnvironmental monitoringGroundwater pollutionMODFLOWPollutionHydrology (agriculture)Environmental chemistryEnvironmental engineeringGroundwater flowAquiferEcologyGeologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Here we outline and demonstrate a screening approach for the detection of groundwater contaminants along urban streams within unconsolidated beds. It involves the rapid acquisition of groundwater samples along urban stream reaches at a spacing of about 10 m and from depths of about 25-75 cm below the streambed, with analyses for a suite of potential contaminants. This screening approach may serve two functions: a) providing information for assessing and mitigating the toxicity and eutrophication risks to aquatic ecosystems posed by groundwater contaminants and b) detecting and identifying groundwater contamination in urban settings more rapidly and inexpensively compared to land-based well installations. The screening approach was tested at three urban streams, each affected by a known chlorinated-solvent plume. All three known groundwater plumes were detected and roughly delineated. Multiple, previously unknown, areas or types of groundwater contamination were also identified at each stream. The newly identified contaminants and plumes included petroleum hydrocarbons (BTEX, naphthalene, MTBE), 1,4-dioxane, nitrate and phosphate, road salt, and various metals (including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead) at elevated concentrations compared to background values and relevant Canadian water quality guidelines. These findings suggest that this screening approach may be a useful tool for both ecologists performing ecological assessments and stream restorations and for hydrogeologists undertaking groundwater protection activities. Given the numerous contaminants detected, it may be appropriate to apply this technique proactively to better determine the pervasiveness of urban groundwater contaminants, especially along urban streams.

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 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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
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 score0.196
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.204 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations62
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Science & TechnologySame topicGroundwater flow and contamination studiesFrench-language works237,207