MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2411899311 · doi:10.1061/9780784479919.069

Phase 1 Esquimalt Graving Dock Waterlot Remediation

2016· article· en· W2411899311 on OpenAlexaffabout
D Berlin, Tingxin Wang, M. Woltman, A. Mylly, R.G. Sharp, C. Major, Gina Cooper

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear and radioactivity studies
Canadian institutionsKlohn Crippen Berger (Canada)Government of British ColumbiaPublic Works and Government Services Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDredgingRemedial actionEnvironmental remediationDOCKEnvironmental scienceContaminationEngineeringWaste managementGeologyOceanographyMarine engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Esquimalt Graving Dock (EGD) is located on federal Crown-owned property in Esquimalt Harbour on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, and is managed by the federal custodian Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC). The EGD facility has been operating for the repair and maintenance of military and civilian vessels since 1927, and it is the largest solid-bottom commercial dry dock on the West Coast of the Americas. Historical contamination includes a broad range of chemicals, such as metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), tributyltin (TBT), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). In support of objectives of the Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan (FCSAP), as well as a potential governance change of the EGD facility, PWGSC developed a multi-phase remedial action plan for cleaning up contaminated sediments in and adjacent to the EGD waterlot. Phase 1A was completed in 2013 and included installation of a sheetpile perimeter wall around the existing timber jetty structures to prevent re contamination of remediated sediments during subsequent phases of the project. Phase 1B was completed in March 2014 and included 144,000 cubic metres (m3) of remedial dredging and off-site upland disposal of contaminated sediments, placement of approximately 24,000 m3 of in-water slope armour, and placement of residuals management cover (RMC) over approximately 74,000 square metres. This paper discusses the key challenges encountered during the Phase 1B remedial design, contracting, and construction, including development of the dredge design, residuals management approach, accommodating highly variable operational needs into the construction sequencing approach, developing contract documents to account for local contractor experience, and specific elements that presented a challenge during construction.

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 score0.277
Threshold uncertainty score0.273

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.229
Teacher spread0.218 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNuclear and radioactivity studiesFrench-language works237,207