MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The management lessons learned from sediment remediation in the Detroit River – western Lake Erie watershed

2004· article· en· W2073702975 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John H. Hartig, Thomas M. Heidtke, Michael A. Zarull, Bonnie Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueLakes & Reservoirs Science Policy and Management for Sustainable Use · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicToxic Organic Pollutants Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWayne State University
KeywordsDredgingEnvironmental remediationSedimentEnvironmental scienceWatershedRemedial actionWildlifeSediment controlEnvironmental protectionContaminationHydrology (agriculture)EcologyOceanographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract During the 1970s−1990s, considerable emphasis was placed on minimizing the inputs of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from active sources. In addition, between 1993 and 2001, ≈ $US130 × 106 was spent for sediment remediation within the western Lake Erie – Detroit River basin. In general, although PCB contamination of the Detroit River and Lake Erie declined significantly between the 1970s and mid‐1990s, it has remained fairly stable over the past 10 years. Control of PCBs and other contaminants at their source remains a primary imperative for action. Remediation of contaminated sediments is growing in importance, however, as greater levels of source control are achieved. From a sediment management perspective, it is estimated that between 1993 and 2001 a substantially higher mass of PCBs (over two orders of magnitude higher) was removed as a result of contaminated sediment remediation, as compared to navigational dredging of shipping channels. In addition, there is a strong and compelling rationale for moving expeditiously to remediate severely contaminated sediment while it is still relatively contained in a small geographical area. The cost of not acting in a timely manner might be to exacerbate environmental problems including increased deformities and reproductive problems in wildlife, delayed ecosystem recovery and increased costs, or even preclusion of future sediment remediation. Based on discussions at a United States of America–Canada workshop held in 2002, key management advice includes continued emphasis to be placed on remediating contaminated sediment hot spots (including evaluating the effectiveness of projects), integrated monitoring efforts to be focused on beneficial use restoration and a high priority to be placed on sustaining and building upon modelling efforts, in order to be able to accurately predict and evaluate ecosystem responses to remedial and preventive actions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.333
Threshold uncertainty score0.662

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.257 · 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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLakes & Reservoirs Science Policy and Management for Sustainable UseSame topicToxic Organic Pollutants ImpactFrench-language works237,207