MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2233150976

Factoring Stormwater Source Control and Natural Recovery Into Long-Term Risk Management Planning for Harbour Sediment

2014· article· en· W2233150976 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M. F. Larsen, Erin Shankie, Wendy Hovel, Gary Watson

Bibliographic record

VenueWestern CEDAR (Western Washington University) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStormwaterHarbourTerm (time)FactoringNatural (archaeology)Stormwater managementEnvironmental scienceSediment controlSedimentEnvironmental planningRisk analysis (engineering)BusinessWater resource managementSurface runoffGeographyGeologyComputer scienceFinanceEcologyArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sediments within the Lot 17 area of Victoria Harbour (B.C.) are managed by Transport Canada. Over the past several years, Transport Canada and Public Works Government Services Canada (PWGSC) have been evaluating the nature and extent of contaminated sediments within the Lot 17. These studies have included the recent completion of a human health and ecological risk assessment. These studies have also included evaluation of ongoing source inputs and natural recovery processes to understand the role of these processes in controlling contaminant concentration trends over time in sediments and harbour biota.Ongoing stormwater source inputs were evaluated, and these were found to be significant particularly for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The most significant inputs were associated with a small number of stormwater outfalls located in current/former industrial areas. Contaminant loadings from stormwater outfalls were modeled to evaluate the significance of these inputs both to the aquatic food web, as well as to potential recontamination of harbour sediments. These studies have been useful to prioritize certain stormwater basins for coordinated source control work with the local municipality, in parallel with risk management planning for harbour sediments.Natural recovery processes within the harbour have been quantified directly using sediment geochronology cores, and using trend analysis in sediments and tissues over time. Despite the presence of ongoing source inputs, natural recovery rates have been shown to be significant both for harbour sediments. The decreasing contaminant trends observed for sediment are also observed in harbour biota. Substantial reductions in PCB and dioxin/furan concentrations have been documented in the tissue of Dungeness Crab during over 20 years of biomonitoring. Evaluation of risk management options for the harbour sediments has considered ongoing monitored natural recovery and its benefits to further long-term risk reduction.Ongoing remediation and risk management planning is focused on detailed options evaluationfor a localized hot spot area within the harbour. For other harbour areas with low defined risks,risk management planning will include coordination of source control activities with the localmunicipality, and monitoring of recovery in sediment and tissue contaminant concentrations.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.282
Threshold uncertainty score0.560

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWestern CEDAR (Western Washington University)Same topicGeological Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207