MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The 2010 Marshall, Michigan Tar Sands Oil Spill

2019· other· en· W2997134666 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jeffrey Insko

Bibliographic record

VenueEncyclopedia of Water · 2019
Typeother
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEcocriticism and Environmental Literature
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOil sandsGallon (US)TributaryEnvironmental scienceOil spillCrude oilAsphaltHydrology (agriculture)ArchaeologyEnvironmental protectionWaste managementGeologyGeographyPetroleum engineeringEngineeringGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract On 25 July 2010, an oil pipeline transporting diluted bitumen from the tar sands region of Alberta, Canada ruptured near Marshall, Michigan. Over the course of 17 hours, oil gushed from a six‐foot seam in the pipeline. By the time personnel from the pipeline company Enbridge, Inc., finally realized the line was compromised, over a million gallons of oil had spilled into Talmadge Creek, a tributary of the Kalamazoo River. The oil traveled almost two miles down the creek and entered the river, which flows some 130 miles in a northwesterly direction until it reaches Lake Michigan. Because a spill of this type and magnitude had never before occurred in a body of fresh water, it would ultimately take nearly seven years and cost more than a billion dollars to clean it up, making it the costliest inland oil spill in the US history. The Marshall spill is significant for what it taught scientists, industry, and the public about the behavior of diluted bitumen in fresh water, for bringing into visibility the threats posed by the nation's vast pipeline infrastructure to sensitive freshwater resources, and for its bellwether role in North American grassroots and indigenous movements focused on water protection.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0180.003

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.175
Teacher spread0.170 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEncyclopedia of WaterSame topicEcocriticism and Environmental LiteratureFrench-language works237,207