Characterizing sediment sources and natural hydrocarbon inputs in the lower Athabasca River, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Athabasca River drains an area of 160 000 km2 in northern Alberta, Canada, with much of the lower basin underlain by oil-sand deposits. The oil sands occur primarily in the McMurray Formation of the Cretaceous Period, with outcrops evident along the banks of the Athabasca River, as well as the lower portions of several tributaries. Since the oil sands represent a natural diffuse source of hydrocarbons to the aquatic environment, understanding the nature and extent of sediment-bound hydrocarbon contaminants in the context of the sediment regime of the Athabasca River is important. Described are fluvial geomorphic characteristics of the lower Athabasca River, which provide a basis for assessing sediment-bound hydrocarbon contaminants. Suspended sediment derived from main stem and tributary sources between Fort McMurray and Embarras account for 1.2 Mt, or 18%, of the mean annual load of the Athabasca River. Of this load, approximately 53% of the sediment input originated from tributaries, the remainder from main-stem sources. The majority of sediment contributed along the main stem occurs in the vicinity of Embarras, well downstream of oil-sand sources. Natural oil-sand sediment contributions are likely much less than 3% of the annual load downstream of Fort McMurray. Key words: sediment, fluvial geomorphology, oil sands, hydrocarbons, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH), contaminants, environmental monitoring, Athabasca River.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".