MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914662236 · doi:10.1080/14634988.2018.1539602

United States progress in remediating contaminated sediments in Great Lakes Areas of Concern

2018· article· en· W2914662236 on OpenAlexaff
Marc L. Tuchman, Scott E. Cieniawski, John H. Hartig

Bibliographic record

VenueAquatic Ecosystem Health & Management · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnvironmental Justice and Health Disparities
Canadian institutionsBalsillie School of International Affairs
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental remediationRemedial actionEnvironmental scienceWildlifeEnvironmental planningEnvironmental protectionSedimentSuperfundContaminationWaste managementHazardous wasteEcologyEngineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Starting in 1985, comprehensive Remedial Action Plans were initiated to restore impaired beneficial uses in Great Lakes Areas of Concern. These plans were a catalyst for developing programs to remediate contaminated sediments. In 1987, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency implemented the Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediment Program to: measure contaminant concentrations in sediments and their potential effects on aquatic life; evaluate risks to wildlife and human health; and test technologies that might be used to clean up these contaminated sediments. In 2002, the U.S. Great Lakes Legacy Act was signed into law with the intent to remediate contaminated sediments at Great Lakes Areas of Concern. Before Great Lakes Legacy Act, only limited progress had been made in addressing contaminated sediments, a major, intractable issue impacting 9 of the 14 listed beneficial use impairments in Areas of Concern. Between 2004 and 2017, Great Lakes stakeholders have completed a total of 46 contaminated sediment remediation projects in U.S. Areas of Concern, resulting in the remediation of over 6.6 million m3 of contaminated sediments at a cost of over $1 billion. Although much has been accomplished, more contaminated sediment remediation must be undertaken to fully restore Areas of Concern. The Great Lakes Legacy Act and Great Lakes Restoration Initiative have been essential components for completing this important remediation and restoration work in Areas of Concern that is resulting in significant economic and environmental benefits.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.347
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations15
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAquatic Ecosystem Health & ManagementSame topicEnvironmental Justice and Health DisparitiesFrench-language works237,207