MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2186959328

Novel Aspects of the Remediation of PCB-Contaminated Soils in the Canadian Arctic: Excavation and PRB Technology

2006· article· en· W2186959328 on OpenAlexaffabout
Indra Kalinovich, John S. Poland

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicRadioactive element chemistry and processing
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental remediationEnvironmental scienceContaminationSoil contaminationSurface runoffSoil waterBedrockContaminated landEnvironmental engineeringWaste managementGeologyEngineeringSoil science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

North American military defense system established in the 1950s and became heavily contaminated with PCBs during its operational years. Remediation of this soil will be completed by the end of 2005. The scale of contamination coupled with fractured bedrock, topography, extreme weather conditions and remoteness of the site heighten the challenges of an effective remediation. Remediation through excavation of the PCB contaminated soil at Resolution Island began in 1999 and at its completion almost 5 tonnes of pure PCBs in approximately 25, 000 m3 of soil will have been remediated. Remediation strategies were based on both quantity of soil and level of contamination in the soil. Soils with PCB concentrations greater than 50 ppm were shipped off site to be incinerated at a licensed facility. Soil with concentrations of PCB between 5 and 50 ppm and 1 and 5 ppm were landfilled on site. The former were placed in a lined facility with sufficient top cover to permanently freeze the contents of the landfill while the latter were placed in an unlined facility. Inevitably some PCB contamination will remain in rock crevices and in inaccessible areas of the site. In addition, the excavation of the surface material will leave a small

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.178
Threshold uncertainty score0.973

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.205 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRadioactive element chemistry and processingFrench-language works237,207