MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077378021 · doi:10.1021/es0608747

Effects of Carbonate Precipitates on Long-Term Performance of Granular Iron for Reductive Dechlorination of TCE

2006· article· en· W2077378021 on OpenAlexafffund
Sung‐Wook Jeen, Robert W. Gillham, David W. Blowes

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Science & Technology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnvironmental remediation with nanomaterials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Water Network
KeywordsCarbonateChemistryAlkalinityReactivity (psychology)Carbonate mineralsCalcium carbonatePorosityMineralogyEnvironmental chemistryInorganic chemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Long-term column experiments were conducted to evaluate the effects of secondary carbonate minerals on permeability and reactivity of commercial granular iron treating trichloroethene (TCE). The results showed that carbonate precipitates caused a decrease in reactivity of the iron, and spatially and temporally varying reactivity loss resulted in migration of mineral precipitation fronts, as well as profiles of TCE, pH, alkalinity, calcium, and dissolved iron. In the columns receiving solutions of dissolved calcium carbonate, porosity gradually decreased in proportion to the source concentrations, as carbonate minerals accumulated. However, the rate of porosity loss slowed over time because of the declining reactivity of the iron. Thus, secondary minerals are not likely to accumulate to the extent that there is a substantial reduction in hydraulic conductivity. The reactivity of the iron was found to decrease as an exponential function of the carbonate mineral volume fraction. This changing reactivity of iron should be incorporated into predictive models for improved designs of iron permeable reactive barriers (PRBs).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.237
Threshold uncertainty score0.513

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations86
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Science & TechnologySame topicEnvironmental remediation with nanomaterialsFrench-language works237,207