MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020643516 · doi:10.1139/s05-029

Remediation of white phosphorus contamination in an Alaskan wetland

2006· article· en· W2020643516 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael R. Walsh, Jon E. Zufelt, Charles M. Collins

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Engineering and Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality and Resources Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental remediationWaterfowlPhosphorusWetlandSiltContaminationEcologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eagle River Flats, an estuarine salt marsh located on Fort Richardson near Anchorage, Alaska, has been utilized as a military impact area for almost 60 years and is contaminated with white phosphorus, a highly toxic element used as an obscurant. When munitions containing white phosphorus were fired into the cool, wet glacial sediments of the Flats, particles of the disbursed chemical became extinguished. Dabbling ducks and swans sieve these seed-size particles from the bottoms of ponds throughout the range. The persistence of the particles in the saturated sediments has resulted in thousands of waterfowl deaths that continue 15 years after the cessation of the munition's use. A remediation method was devised to attenuate the contaminant that will be effective in the short, cool summer season while minimally impacting the environment. Although the cold climate limits the efficiency of the remediation, we were also able to use it to our advantage. Key words: white phosphorus, remediation, dabbling ducks, cold, ice, glacial silt, contamination, impact range, pumping, unexploded ordnance.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Engineering and ScienceSame topicWater Quality and Resources StudiesFrench-language works237,207