MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2805122714 · doi:10.2166/wqrj.2001.023

Socio-Economics of Remediating Contaminated Sediment for the St. Clair River Area of Concern

2001· article· en· W2805122714 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
R. J. Rivers

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Quality Research Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnvironmental Justice and Health Disparities
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRemedial actionEnvironmental remediationSedimentEnvironmental sciencePollutionContaminationHydrology (agriculture)Water qualityEnvironmental engineeringGeologyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Of the total amount of contaminated sediment in the upper stretch of the St. Clair River, there are approximately 4500 cubic meters of sediment contaminated by mercury and organic chemicals that represent five of the remaining seven impaired uses in the St. Clair River Area of Concern. This material is the result of industrial pollution over a number of years in the Sarnia, Ontario, “Chemical Valley” and has most likely entered the St. Clair River via a surface drain passing through an industrial landfill. Scientific studies indicate that the contaminated material is constantly migrating downstream and has a potential for significant releases from large vessel traffic propeller wash or ice action. This paper examines two remediation options in the light of the potential benefits from a cleanup of the contaminated sediments. While not a typical benefit-cost analysis, this study explores the relationship between remediation and the social and economic benefits associated with “delisting” of the St. Clair River as an Area of Concern. The study has implications for other Areas of Concern that have sediment-related problems and require remedial action to meet the goals of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

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)0.012
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.301
Threshold uncertainty score0.813

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.287
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Quality Research JournalSame topicEnvironmental Justice and Health DisparitiesFrench-language works237,207