MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2321804829 · doi:10.1061/40976(316)168

Real-Time Water Quality Monitoring as a Regulatory Tool for Mining Sites — The Newfoundland and Labrador Experience

2008· article· en· W2321804829 on OpenAlexaffabout
Amir Ali Khan, Haseen Khan, Jennifer Bonnell, Joanne Sweeney

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2008 · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMine drainage and remediation techniques
Canadian institutionsDepartment of Environment and ConservationGovernment of Newfoundland and Labrador
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality (philosophy)Copper mineWater qualityQuality assuranceProcess (computing)Environmental resource managementComputer scienceEngineeringEnvironmental scienceOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to assess the impact of natural resources development projects such as mines on water bodies, it is crucial to have an appropriate water quality-monitoring program in place. Real-time water quality (RTWQ) monitoring is suited to monitoring the impact of mining projects especially those situated in remote locations. To illustrate the successful use of RTWQ monitoring as a regulatory performance tool, case studies are presented of two real time water quality networks that were established as a part of the environmental permitting process for the Voisey's Bay Nickel Mine project site in Labrador and the Aur Resources Copper Zinc Mine site in Newfoundland. The case studies detail the need for the establishment of the networks, the installation of the networks, the details of the networks, the Quality Assurance program, the RTWQ public web page and the experience encountered since the networks were established. Also discussed is the use of the data collected by the RTWQ network by various stakeholders. The challenges of using RTWQ for mining sites are also discussed.

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 score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.784

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 studies0.0010.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2008Same topicMine drainage and remediation techniquesFrench-language works237,207