MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2290803468 · doi:10.14288/1.0042300

Ecological risk assessment for a mine pit lake, Nevada, USA

2009· article· en· W2290803468 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer R. Sampson, Ron S. Mellott, Robert A. Pastorok

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMine drainage and remediation techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyEcologyEnvironmental scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Closure of an open pit gold mine in central Nevada, USA, will result in cessation of dewatering at the mine and formation of a pit lake. The future pit lake will occur in a desert shrub community and have no surface water inflows or outflows. An ecological risk assessment far the pit lake was conducted as part of an environmental impact statement required for expansion of mine facilities. Because the pit lake does not yet exist, ecological risks were estimated from the results of predictive water quality models and measurement of chemical concentrations in the rock wall of the pit. The exposure of birds and mammals to individual metals through food and water ingestion was estimated on the basis of concentrations of metals in water and bioconcentration factors and through sediment ingestion was estimated from concentrations of metals in wall rock. Exposure estimates, which were expressed as daily rates of intake of individual metals, were compared to no-effects and lowest-effects doses reported in the literature for those metals. Results of the risk assessment demonstrated minimal risks to dabbling ducks from exposure to zinc and no risk to other wildlife from chemical exposures.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicMine drainage and remediation techniquesFrench-language works237,207