MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044534274 · doi:10.1115/nawtec11-1677

Long-Term Operating Results: Ash Monofill

2003· article· en· W2044534274 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Richard W. Goodwin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeachateEnvironmental scienceWaste managementCadmiumHazardous wasteGroundwaterIncinerationEnvironmental engineeringLimeCompactionEngineeringGeotechnical engineeringGeologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An ash monofill was studied from 1997 to 2001. Monitoring results of the lined landfill showed viability of liner since groundwater standards were not exceeded. Raw leachate of RCRA heavy metal leachate results show Chromium reaching groundwater standards while Lead, Cadmium and Zinc slightly exceed these standards. An upset incident of premature set-up of lime-laden ash caused a back-up and overflow condition in 1994. Adding water of solubilization and field compaction achieves optimal geo-technical properties and reduces heavy metal leachate. This water addition would have also reduced fugitive dust concerns. These principles of sound engineering management of MWC residues were well-known and widely publicized. If the landfill operator had applied these principles the upset incident could have been avoided. Long-term trends of RCRA heavy metal leachate results show compliance with groundwater standards, although Lead, Cadmium and Zinc exceed these standards. Application of sound engineering placement practice would have reduced these long-term trends. USA Regulatory officials should consider incorporating these principles into residue management recommendations, following Environment Canada’s example. Recognition and implementation of these principles would confirm that incinerator ash can be properly managed — to alleviate concerns — justifying their beneficial reuse.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeophysical Methods and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207