MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009839590 · doi:10.1190/1.1587676

Ground conductivity survey of a septic system during and after failure

2003· article· en· W2009839590 on OpenAlexaff
R. E. Taylor, Brad Lee, Jim Doolittle

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Leading Edge · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsMilton District Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAquiferHydraulic conductivityGroundwaterAcreResidenceEMIEngineeringHydrology (agriculture)GeologyTelecommunicationsSoil waterElectrical engineeringEnvironmental scienceGeotechnical engineeringElectromagnetic interferenceSoil scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many people (e.g., 25% of the U.S. population) use septic systems for wastewater disposal. In the United States, county health departments typically are responsible for overseeing the installation and operation of these systems. Because most systems rely on the soil to absorb the wastewater, special attention is required where the hydraulic permeability of soils may allow contamination to reach either the surface or a nearby aquifer. Electromagnetic induction (EMI) provides an efficient means for observing septic system performance and for guiding costlier onsite investigations.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.180

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.210 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Leading EdgeSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207