MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2753607671 · doi:10.7901/2169-3358-2017.1.1543

Effectiveness of chemical dispersants used in broken ice conditions

2017· article· en· W2753607671 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Liv-Guri Faksness, R. Belore, James McCourt, Marius Johnsen, Thor-Arne Pettersen, Per S. Daling

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Oil Spill Conference Proceedings · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicOil Spill Detection and Mitigation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDispersantEnvironmental scienceWeatheringSalinitySeawaterDispersion (optics)Environmental engineeringPetroleum engineeringGeologyOceanographyGeochemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT (no. 2017-095) In 2012, the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers initiated “The Arctic Oil Spill Response Technology Joint Industry Program (JIP)” with nine companies funding projects in a wide range of technical areas. This paper summarizes results from the project “Dispersant Testing under Realistic Conditions”, a collaboration between SINTEF (Norway) and SL Ross (Canada). The objective of the research was to build on current knowledge to increase understanding of the effect of oil type, degree of weathering, and environmental conditions on dispersant effectiveness in ice-covered waters. SINTEF and SL Ross performed approximately 70 tests using two identical recirculating flumes with variable parameters such as oil types, dispersant type, mixing energy, ice coverage, and water salinity. The oils were weathered in the flumes for 6 or 18 hours under simulated winds, waves, and cold temperatures to represent weathering that might occur at sea prior to dispersant application. The dispersed oil was exposed to various mixing energies, starting with low energy waves, followed by somewhat higher energy waves, and finally by applying propeller wash. Four crude oils were studied and the dispersant efficiency of three commercial oil spill dispersants were evaluated for the tested oils. Other test parameters were ice coverage (50% and 80%) and water salinity (35, 15, and 5 ppt). Dispersant effectiveness as a function of the different test variables were estimated using results from the flume-based experiments. As expected, shorter weathering times resulted in an increase in dispersant efficiency. The dispersant effectiveness varied with both oil type and dispersant type applied, and the effectiveness increased when higher mixing energy conditions were used. Varying the ice cover did not influence the results significantly, but water salinity did, with the lowest dispersant efficiencies found at 5 ppt salinity. The conclusions are based on the findings from testing performed under the controlled conditions and may not be directly transferable to all conditions that could be encountered in the Arctic. However, this study shows that dispersants can be considered as a response option for spills in ice, but effectiveness needs to be validated in the field during an actual event.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Oil Spill Conference ProceedingsSame topicOil Spill Detection and MitigationFrench-language works237,207