MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

SUBMERSIBLE OPTICAL SENSORS EXPOSED TO CHEMICALLY-DISPERSED CRUDE OIL: WAVE TANK SIMULATIONS FOR IMPROVED OIL SPILL MONITORING

2014· article· en· W2164358490 on OpenAlex
Robyn N. Conmy, Paula G. Coble, James K. Farr, A. Michelle Wood, Robert L. Parsons, Kiho Lee, Scott Pegau, Ian D. Walsh, Corey Koch, Mary I. Abercrombie, M. Scott Miles, Marlon R. Lewis, Scott Ryan, Brian Robinson, Tom King, Jordanna Lacoste

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Oil Spill Conference Proceedings · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicOil Spill Detection and Mitigation
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityBedford Institute of OceanographyFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceDilutionPlumeSubseaPetroleumPetroleum engineeringBTEXOil spillEthylbenzeneEnvironmental engineeringMarine engineeringEngineeringTolueneChemistryMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In situ fluorometers were deployed during the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) Gulf of Mexico oil spill to provide critical measurements for tracking the subsea oil plume. In the wake of the spill, uncertainties regarding instrument specifications, capabilities and reliability necessitated performance testing of sensors (commonly used during spill response) exposed to simulated, dispersed oil plumes. Moreover, concerns on the applicability of laboratory calibrations (at high concentrations and insufficient mixing energies) to field conditions and on sensor reliability to detect dispersed oil persist. To address these uncertainties the performance of select commercially-available sensors (from Chelsea Technologies Group, Satlantic, Turner Designs, WetLabs Inc) was evaluated using a wave tank facility at the Bedford Institute of Oceanography in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Breaking waves were generated within the tank to simulate mixing energies and achieve dispersant effectiveness observed in the field. Presented here are the results of the sensors exposed to chemically-dispersed MC252 crude oil using Corexit 9500, DOR=1:20. Stepwise additions of dispersed oil (0.3 – 12 ppm) to the tank were used to establish linearity. Model 1 linear least squares regressions were calculated and applied to sensor data during validation experiments to simulate dilution of an oil plume. Dynamic ranges of the sensors, exposed to fresh and artificially weathered crude oil, were determined. Sensors were standardized against known oil volumes and measured Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) and Benzene-Toluene-Ethylbenzene-Xylene (BTEX) values – both collected during spills, providing oil estimates during dilution experiments. Results were validated against particle size data (Sequoia LISST). All sensors estimated oil concentrations down to 300 ppb oil, refuting previous reports. Low percent differences and absolute errors between chemistry and sensor results were metrics to evaluate performance. Discussed will be the application of this vicarious calibration approach as a means to calibrate the DWH fine-scale fluorescence data into oil concentrations. This allows for filling in coarse-scale field chemistry data, improved assessment of DWH spill measurements mined from the NOAA NODC, and understanding the fate and transport of the DWH oil plume.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.157
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.231 · 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