THE BEHAVIOUR AND TREATMENT OF ORIMULSION® BITUMEN STRANDED ON PEBBLE, COBBLE OR IMPERMEABLE SUBSTRATE SHORELINES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Bitumen from an Orimulsion® spill can strand on shorelines in the form or dispersed bitumen or coalesced bitumen. Wetness of the shoreline substrate is an important factor in the adhesion of the bitumen and this in turn significantly effects selection of a treatment technique. Stranded bitumen on the surface of a shoreline that remains wet and/or non adhesive can be removed relatively easily by a combination of low-pressure washing, flooding, and recovery, or by manual and mechanical removal techniques. When stranded on dry surfaces or when interfacial surfaces dry, then the bitumen will strongly adhere to shoreline substrates either in the form of thin coatings or thick deposits of bitumen that are difficult to remove. Heated, high-pressure seawater washing is effective but must be accompanied by flooding to minimize penetration into coarse sediments. Sediment relocation, sediment removal, wet tilling and natural recovery techniques are appropriate techniques under specific oiling conditions. Temperature greatly effects bitumen penetration into sediments. Where bitumen coatings or deposits form in subsurface sediments then treatment becomes extremely difficult, requiring sediment removal or techniques to bring oiling surface sediments to the surface for treatment.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".