MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2333510845 · doi:10.1021/es2034137

Toxic Groundwater Contaminants: An Overlooked Contributor to Urban Stream Syndrome?

2011· article· en· W2333510845 on OpenAlexaff
James W. Roy, Greg Bickerton

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Science & Technology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Stormwater Management Solutions
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContaminationEnvironmental scienceGroundwaterEnvironmental chemistryUrban streamAquatic ecosystemPollutionEcosystemWater qualityEcologyChemistryGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Screening for common groundwater contaminants was performed along eight urban stream reaches (100s-1000s of m) at approximately 25-75 cm below the streambeds. Four sites had known or suspected chlorinated-solvent plumes; otherwise no groundwater contamination was known previously. At each site, between 5 and 22 contaminants were detected at levels above guideline concentrations for the preservation of aquatic life, while several others were detected at lower levels, but which may still indicate some risk. Contaminants of greatest concern include numerous metals (Cd, Zn, Al, Cu, Cr, U), arsenic, various organics (chlorinated and petroleum), nitrate and ammonium, and chloride (road salt likely), with multiple types occurring at each site and often at the same sampling location. Substantial portions of the stream reaches (from 40 to 88% of locations sampled) possessed one or more contaminants above guidelines. These findings suggest that this diffuse and variable-composition urban groundwater contamination is a toxicity concern for all sites and over a large portion of each study reach. Synergistic toxicity, both for similar and disparate compounds, may also be important. We conclude that groundwater contaminants should be considered a genuine risk to urban stream aquatic ecosystems, specifically benthic organisms, and may contribute to urban stream syndrome.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations82
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Science & TechnologySame topicUrban Stormwater Management SolutionsFrench-language works237,207