Distribution of Arsenic and Copper in Sediment Pore Water: An Ecological Risk Assessment Case Study for Offshore Drilling Waste Discharges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the hydrophobic nature of synthetic based fluids (SBFs), drilling cuttings are not very dispersive in the water column and settle down close to the disposal site. Arsenic and copper are two important toxic heavy metals, among others, found in the drilling waste. In this article, the concentrations of heavy metals are determined using a steady state "aquivalence-based" fate model in a probabilistic mode. Monte Carlo simulations are employed to determine pore water concentrations. A hypothetical case study is used to determine the water quality impacts for two discharge options: 4% and 10% attached SBFs, which correspond to the best available technology option and the current discharge practice in the U.S. offshore. The exposure concentration (CE) is a predicted environmental concentration, which is adjusted for exposure probability and bioavailable fraction of heavy metals. The response of the ecosystem (RE) is defined by developing an empirical distribution function of predicted no-effect concentration. The pollutants' pore water concentrations within the radius of 750 m are estimated and cumulative distributions of risk quotient (RQ=CE/RE) are developed to determine the probability of RQ greater than 1.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".