Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coastal energy infrastructure and other port projects require dredging to make the sites suitable for construction. On the west coast of Canada, dredging has been required at many recently proposed port sites. Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) licences disposal of material at several large disposal-at-sea (DoS) sites on the coast. Proponents may also propose a new or temporary DoSsite nearer to their development to save enormous shipping time and costs. Depending on the level of contamination of the sediment to be disposed, and the methods used, the regulation may require sediment to be disposed at either a dispersive or non-dispersive site. In the past several years, "guidelines for determining dispersivity" have been proposed by NRCan(Lintern)/EC scientists and stipulated to two proponents. The validity of the methodology is being tested. NRCanis part of a triparty Regional Ocean Disposal Advisory Committee that will investigate several aspects of dredge disposal on the coast, one of which is dispersivityof existing sites. NRCanis tasked with determining dispersivityat existing sites and with conducting sensitivity analysis of the variables used in the existing guidelines. This requires oceanographic mooring instrumentation, data analysis and modeling.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".