MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

GWMR Focus Issue on Vapor Intrusion

2009· article· en· W2019590739 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueGroundwater Monitoring & Remediation · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Stormwater Management Solutions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntrusionIntrusion detection systemPolitical scienceBusinessComputer securityComputer scienceGeologyGeochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The timing of this GWMR special focus issue roughly coincides with the 20th anniversary of the emergence of soil vapor intrusion to indoor air as an exposure pathway of concern for human health risks at sites with contaminated soil and ground water. In 1988, the Indoor Radon Abatement Act was promulgated and chlorinated solvent vapor intrusion was identified in the Hillside School in Needham, Massachusetts. At about the same time, the Johnson and Ettinger screening-level model was being developed to assess vapor intrusion risks at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal. In general, however, this pathway was seldom assessed until vapor intrusion cases in Colorado in the late 1990s gained attention in the press and raised the issue to national prominence. There are now about two dozen state-level guidance documents, a few federal guidance documents, and multiple documents from private companies or nongovernment organizations. Internationally, there is interest in vapor intrusion in several other countries (Canada, UK, EU, and Australia, to name a few). There are significant differences between jurisdictions in approaches, methods, policies, and screening levels (by up to several orders of magnitude). This indicates the limits of our collective understanding of the topic because the laws of physics, building ventilation practices, and human toxicology do not vary much between states or countries. The development of a simple recipe for assessing vapor intrusion has been elusive; regulatory agencies generally would like an assessment approach that minimizes false negatives (falsely concluding that vapor intrusion poses no significant risk), whereas responsible parties generally would like an approach that is practicable and minimizes both false negatives and false positives (falsely concluding that vapor intrusion does pose an unacceptable risk). Assessments can be challenging because typical indoor air concentrations in residences not affected by vapor intrusion approach risk-based target concentrations for several common chemicals. Considering all the attention paid to the vapor intrusion pathway, there has been very little funding for relevant pure or applied research in the past decade. For example, the Indoor Radon Abatement Act of 1988 allocated about $15 million/year of research and technical assistance funding. Recently, federal funding has been extended to a few studies of VOC vapor intrusion through the Environmental Security Technology Certification program (ESTCP) and the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP), although in much smaller amounts. Industry-funded programs have been few and small and largely led by the American Petroleum Institute and its member companies. As a result, much of what has been learned in the past decade has been based on studies conducted on an ad hoc basis with limited resources. Also, much of what has been learned has been shared in conference proceedings, or other non-peer-reviewed literature. This was a stimulus for this focus issue, which started about a year ago with an invitation sent to a large number of individuals active in this field, but with few or no publications in archival journals. The articles in this issue intentionally span a range of topics, including regulatory and public perspectives as well as traditional archival peer-review papers on sampling methods, empirical data variability, mathematical modeling, background concentrations, biodegradation of petroleum compounds, and more. We are grateful to the dozens of authors and coauthors as well as the dozens of peer reviewers for devoting their time to share the information contained herein. Schedule and space constraints prevented some papers from being published in this issue, and they will appear in coming issues. It will be interesting to see how the assessment and management of this exposure pathway progress. We need to develop and demonstrate the use of new data collection methods leading to confident characterization of long-term average exposures, because it is difficult to practicably reduce the uncertainty inherent in current point-in-time and point-in-space sampling methods given the spatial and temporal variations seen at research sites. In addition, we need improved techniques to discriminate between subsurface and indoor sources of indoor air contaminants, and improved predictive capabilities to address future-use scenarios at sites without buildings currently present or buildings where access for monitoring is denied. There are also several policy-related issues to consider, like those leading to screening levels that vary by several orders of magnitude, data sufficiency for reliable assessment, and relations with owners and occupants of potentially affected properties. There are significant challenges to overcome before we can screen and assess VOC vapor intrusion confidently and cost-effectively at all sites; in the meanwhile, there is an amazing opportunity for creative solutions to the current challenges. The readership of GWMR will no doubt be significant contributors to these solutions. We hope you enjoy this issue and look forward to future articles on this challenging and important topic.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.592
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.003

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.220 · 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