MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999672436 · doi:10.2495/bf100151

The Sydney tar ponds: lessons learned from Canada’s first superfund level project

2010· article· en· W1999672436 on OpenAlexaffabout
E. MacLellan, A. J. Britten

Bibliographic record

VenueWIT transactions on ecology and the environment · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRisk Perception and Management
Canadian institutionsCape Breton University
Fundersnot available
Keywordstar (computing)SuperfundEnvironmental scienceWaste managementEngineeringComputer scienceHazardous waste

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper traces the history of the Sydney Tar Ponds Clean-Up project from the first announcement in 1986 to the present, including comments on the more than $560M (USD) spent or committed to date.During this period the project generated thousands of headlines in print, television and radio media; and created significant grief for the community, elected officials, public servants, consultants and others.This paper examines the different attempts to clean-up the tar ponds and scopes out lessons learned related to organization structure, public engagement, risk communication, innovation and other areas.

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, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.895
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.268
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWIT transactions on ecology and the environmentSame topicRisk Perception and ManagementFrench-language works237,207