MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087282975 · doi:10.1080/15275920600667153

Use of Logarithmic-Scale Correlation Plots to Represent Contaminant Ratios for Evaluation of Subsurface Environmental Data

2006· article· en· W2087282975 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Forensics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicGroundwater flow and contamination studies
Canadian institutionsProfound Medical (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGroundwaterContaminationEnvironmental scienceSoil scienceSedimentDilutionEnvironmental chemistryDispersion (optics)Soil contaminationSorptionHydrology (agriculture)Soil waterChemistryGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contaminant concentration ratios are used commonly to distinguish between different sources of contamination and to evaluate contaminant attenuation in groundwater, soil air, soil, and sediment.Logarithmic-scale correlation (log-log) plots provide special capabilities in representing contaminant ratios.Log-log plots can reflect the ranges in concentrations over many orders of magnitude, the magnitude and ranges of concentration ratios, and whether ratios are constant or change with declining concentration.Declines in contaminant concentrations due to dilution and dispersion processes will not change contaminant ratios, and such data should plot along isoratio lines.If contaminant concentrations are reduced also by other attenuation processes such as sorption or biodegradation that affect one of the contaminants to a greater degree than the other, the ratio will change and the data will deviate from the isoratio line trends.Examples are given to illustrate the use of log-log plots in the interpretation of chemical data from sites of groundwater, soil air, and sediment contamination.

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.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.164
Threshold uncertainty score0.853

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.213 · 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