A comparative analysis of practitioners' experience in sediment remediation projects to highlight best practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Randle Reef contaminated site, located in the southwest corner of Hamilton Harbour, is approximately 60 hectares in size. This site contains approximately 695,000 m3 of sediment contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and metals. The complex Randle Reef sediment remediation project is finally coming to fruition after more than 30 years of study, discussion, collaborations, stakeholder consensus-building, and debate. This paper unravels the reasons behind the delays associated with implementing sediment management at the Randle Reef site. In-depth interviews with experts and professionals from organizations who are/were involved in the project were conducted to identify the nature of performance in five theme areas that are important for successful action namely: (1) participation of appropriate actors with common objectives; (2) funding and resources; (3) decision-making process; (4) research and technology development; and (5) public and political support. It is evident from this study that the hurdles to progress with addressing contaminated sediment sites involve technical, political, regulatory as well as social challenges. We offer potential solutions and a series of recommendations based on experts' first-hand experience with the management of such complex sites to inform how future remediation projects can overcome obstacles. This article has been made Open Access thanks to the kind support of CAWQ/ACQE (https://www.cawq.ca).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".