MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Survey of Portable Oil Detection Methods

2014· article· en· W2009436273 on OpenAlex
Mike Goldthorp, Patrick Lambert, Carl E. Brown

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Oil Spill Conference Proceedings · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicOil Spill Detection and Mitigation
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceShoreOil spillSoftware portabilitySedimentContaminationPetroleum engineeringComputer scienceGeologyEnvironmental engineeringOceanographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When oil is spilled into the marine environment, it may be found on the water's surface, in the water column, in the sediment, or on the shoreline. When delineating the extent of contamination, it is important to be able to differentiate the spilled oil from other components that may appear to be oil. There are established methods for detecting oil-in-water, such as fluorometry, that allow in situ measurements to be made. In this study, we investigate both established methods and potential technological advancements that could provide a means for a site investigator to gather meaningful on-site information regarding the presence of oil. The primary focus will be usefulness to a shoreline application, but application to other types of samples is addressed. The degree to which an oil could be identified using these portable methods, such as the ability to differentiate petrogenic from biogenic oils, is also discussed. Method comparisons are discussed, with relevance to portability, selectivity, relative cost, and ability to process multiple samples.

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.767
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.266 · 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