MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161618124 · doi:10.2166/wqrjc.2013.129

Ecological benefit of the road salt code of practice

2013· article· en· W2161618124 on OpenAlexaffabout
Bruce W. Kilgour, Bahram Gharabaghi, Nandana Perera

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Quality Research Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSmart Materials for Construction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceRoad surfaceInvertebrateSalt (chemistry)EcologyGeographyEnvironmental protectionEngineeringCivil engineeringBiologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite an overall increase in total road salt used over the past 14 years (the data record in this manuscript), there has been a 26% reduction in the rate (normalized as tonnes of salt per cm of snow per km of road) of road salt application by the City of Toronto since that city implemented mitigations from the Road Salt Code of Practice. The ecological benefit of the reduced use of road salt was approximated by comparing the estimated 26% salt reduction to the distribution of chloride tolerances that has been recently published by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (i.e., CCME). Species sensitivity distributions predict that between 1 and 14% of taxa would benefit from a 26% reduction in chloride concentrations in surface waters. Assuming that a typical ‘healthy’ Canadian watercourse might support between 100 and 200 species of fish, invertebrates and plants, the Code of Practice might provide benefit to between 14 and 28 species. However, the net ecological benefit of implementing the Code may be undermined in rapidly urbanizing watersheds where road networks continue to expand at a rate of 3–5% per year and chloride loads to urban streams are steadily increasing.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.594
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.296 · 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.

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

Citations24
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Quality Research JournalSame topicSmart Materials for ConstructionFrench-language works237,207