MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156625941 · doi:10.7202/705291ar

Mobilité des métaux et risque de contamination des eaux lors de la valorisation sylvicole des boues de station d'épuration municipales au Québec : une revue

2005· article· fr· W2156625941 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michèle Roy, Denis Couillard

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue des sciences de l eau · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHeavy metals in environment
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueInstitut National d'OptiqueMinistère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForestryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La présence de métaux dans les boues municipales demeure l'obstacle majeure à leur valorisation comme fertilisant agricole ou forestier. L'utilisation des boues en milieu forestier diminue certes les risques de contamination de la chaîne alimentaire humaine. Cependant, nos connaissances sur le comportement à long terme des métaux ajoutés aux sols forestiers sont encore très limitées. Le risque de lessivage des métaux vers les écosystèmes aquatiques situés en aval des zones traitées doit être évalué. Cet article propose une comparaison des risques de contamination de l'eau selon que l'application des boues s'effectue en forêt ou en milieu agricole. Les concentrations de métaux dans les boues municipales, leurs formes et leur mobilité dans les sols amendés sont passées en revue. Et finalement, les normes québécoises qui ont été établies pour protéger le milieu récepteur contre les métaux présents dans les boues sont comparées à celles recommandées par l'U.S. EPA.

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)0.001
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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.157
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue des sciences de l eauSame topicHeavy metals in environmentFrench-language works237,207