MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2324504850 · doi:10.1021/es3031352

Contaminants at the Sediment–Water Interface: Implications for Environmental Impact Assessment and Effects Monitoring

2013· article· en· W2324504850 on OpenAlexaff
Timothy G. Milligan, Brent Law

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Science & Technology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of OceanographyFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSedimentEnvironmental scienceContaminationTailingsSampling (signal processing)Surface waterMicrocosmFlocculationEnvironmental monitoringEnvironmental engineeringEnvironmental chemistryFilter (signal processing)GeologyEcologyMaterials scienceChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many contaminants in aquatic environments are associated with loosely packed aggregates of particulate material called flocs. Flocculation allows contaminants to accumulate at the sediment-water interface and it packages them in a form that is readily available for ingestion by filter feeding organisms. Unfortunately, most samplers being used for environmental assessment and monitoring suspend this material on impact and fail to sample this critical component of the seabed. In this study we use a slo-corer to collect seabed samples with an undisturbed surface layer and a Gust microcosm erosion chamber to erode the surface of the cores at increasing shear stresses. Results from two different sites, one impacted by tailings from historic gold mining and the other by open-pen salmon aquaculture, showed the levels of metals suspended at stresses below 0.24 Pa were greater than in the underlying sediment. Sampling this highly mobile surface layer is critical for determining the total contaminant load in bottom sediments and, more importantly, this layer represents the most readily available material for suspension. The loss of this layer during sampling could lead to inaccurate measurements of contaminant levels during environmental assessment and effects monitoring. A re-evaluation of the ISO standard for bottom sediment sampling is recommended.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations40
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Science & TechnologySame topicMercury impact and mitigation studiesFrench-language works237,207