Trends in Hamilton Harbour suspended sediment quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Suspended sediment quality in Hamilton Harbour has been assessed as part of a long-term monitoring study (1987–2012). Sampling locations reflected a range of shoreline activities and sources of chemical contamination to the harbour. Temporal data showed a trend toward decreasing levels of contamination by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and polychlorinated biphenyls over the period from the late 1980s to the early 1990s, with a subsequent leveling off over the next two decades. The highest concentrations of both contaminants were detected in areas impacted by industrial activities along the southern shoreline and Windermere Arm, and deep-water areas of the harbour where fine-grained sediments ultimately accumulate. Areas of the harbor discharging residential or rural parts of the watershed exhibited generally lower levels of contamination. In addition to the relatively higher contaminant levels, areas along the southern shoreline and Windermere Arm characterized by historical industrial activities and associated contaminated sediments exhibited chemical profiles indicating an impact on suspended sediment and bottom sediment quality throughout the harbour. Continued monitoring after scheduled remedial activities should provide an assessment of the overall efficacy of management actions to improve sediment quality in Hamilton Harbour.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".