MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Permeable Reactive Barrier for Treatment of Heavy Metals

2002· article· en· W1995687266 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ralph D. Ludwig, Rick McGregor, David W. Blowes, S. G. Benner, Keith J. Mountjoy

Bibliographic record

VenueGround Water · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMine drainage and remediation techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPermeable reactive barrierSulfateEnvironmental chemistryChemistrySulfideMetalCopperSulfate-reducing bacteriaPlumeHeavy metalsNuclear chemistryContaminationEnvironmental remediation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Historical storage of ore concentrate containing sulfide minerals at an industrial site in British Columbia, Canada, has resulted in widespread contamination of the underlying soil and ground water. The oxidation of sulfide minerals has released significant quantities of heavy metals, including Cu, Cd, Co, Ni, and Zn, into the ground water. A pilot-scale, compost-based, sulfate-reducing permeable reactive barrier was installed in the path of the dissolved heavy-metal plume. The permeable reactive barrier uses sulfate-reducing bacteria to promote precipitation of heavy metals as insoluble metal sulfides. Monitoring over a 21-month period indicated significant removal of heavy metals within the barrier. Copper concentrations declined from a mean concentration of 3,630 pg/L in the influent to a mean concentration within the barrier of 10.5 microg/L, Cd from 15.3 microg/L to 0.2 microg/L, Co from 5.3 microg/L to 1.1 microg/L, Ni from 131 pg/L to 33.0 microg/L, and Zn from 2,410 microg/L to 136 pg/L. Within the lower half of the barrier where tidal influences were more limited and sulfate-reducing conditions were better maintained, mean treatment levels of 2.9 microg/L (Cu), 0.1 microg/L (Cd), 0.4 microg/L (Co), 2.7 microg/L (Ni), and 6.3 microg/L (Zn) were observed.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 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

Citations131
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGround WaterSame topicMine drainage and remediation techniquesFrench-language works237,207