MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115561310 · doi:10.1002/etc.1974

Direct soil contact values for ecological receptors exposed to weathered petroleum hydrocarbon (PHC) fraction 2

2012· article· en· W2115561310 on OpenAlexaffabout
Robin A. Angell, Steve Kullman, Emma Shrive, Gladys L. Stephenson, Miles Tindal

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Toxicology and Chemistry · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPesticide and Herbicide Environmental Studies
Canadian institutionsHusky Energy (Canada)Stantec (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydrocarbonEnvironmental chemistryFraction (chemistry)PetroleumEnvironmental scienceEcologyChemistryBiologyChromatographyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ecological tier 1 Canada-wide standards (CWS) for petroleum hydrocarbon (PHC) fraction 2 (F2; >nC10-C16) in soil were derived using ecotoxicological assessment endpoints (effective concentrations [ECs]/lethal concentrations [LCs]/inhibitory concentrations, 25% [IC25s]) with freshly spiked (fresh) fine- and coarse-grained soils. These soil standards might be needlessly conservative when applied to field samples with weathered hydrocarbons. The purpose of the present study was to assess the degradation and toxicity of weathered PHC F2 in a fine-grained soil and to derive direct soil contact values for ecological receptors. Fine-grained reference soils were spiked with distilled F2 and weathered for 183 d. Toxicity tests using plants and invertebrates were conducted with the weathered F2-spiked soils. Endpoint EC/IC25s were calculated and used to derive soil standards for weathered F2 in fine-grained soil protective of ecological receptors exposed via direct soil contact. The values derived for weathered F2 were less restrictive than current ecological tier 1 CWS for F2 in soil.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations14
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Toxicology and ChemistrySame topicPesticide and Herbicide Environmental StudiesFrench-language works237,207