MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3118557410 · doi:10.1201/9780429506376-5

The Newfoundland Offshore Burn Experiment

2018· book-chapter· en· W3118557410 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Merv Fingas, Patrick Lambert

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicOil Spill Detection and Mitigation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubmarine pipelineMarine engineeringOceanographyEnvironmental scienceHistoryGeologyAeronauticsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A group of more than 25 agencies from Canada and the United States conducted a major offshore burn near Newfoundland, Canada, in 1993. Two batches of oil, about 50 tons each, were released into a fireproof boom. Each burn lasted more than one hour and was monitored for emissions and physical parameters. Over 200 sensors or samplers were employed to yield data on over 2000 parameters or substances. The experiment was the largest of its type ever conducted. The operation was extensive, with over 20 vessels, 7 aircraft and 230 people involved in the at-sea operation. The experiment resulted in extensive analytical data as well as significant operational data, some of which are presented in this chapter. The quantitative analytical data show that the emissions from this in-situ oil fire were less than expected. All compounds and parameters measured were below health concern levels beyond about 150 m from the fire, very little being detected beyond 500 m. The fate and behaviour of oil components in fires are, in many cases, the subject of further research. Pollutants were found to be at lower values in the Newfoundland offshore burn than they were in prior pan tests. The reason for this is the larger scale of the burn, resulting in more efficient combustion. Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were found to be lower in the soot than in the starting oil and were consumed by the fire to a large degree. Particulates in the air were measured by several means and found to be of concern only up to 150 m downwind at sea level. Particulate matter may not be a concern past this distance except perhaps in the plume remnants. Combustion gases including carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide and carbon monoxide did not reach levels of concern. These gases were emitted over a broad area around the fire and were not directly associated with the plume trajectory. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were abundant; however, they were less than emitted from the non-burning spill. Over 50 compounds were quantified, most at levels that would not cause concern. Water under the burns was analysed; no compounds of concern could be found at the detection level of the methods employed. Toxicity tests performed on this water did not show any adverse effect. The burn residue was analysed for the same compounds as the air samples. PAHs were found at lower concentrations in the residue than in the starting oil. The overall mass of PAHs, including that of the higher-molecular-weight species, was about 6 orders of magnitude lower after the burn. Overall, indications from these burn trials are that emissions from in-situ burning are low in comparison to other sources of emissions and result in acceptable concentrations of air contaminants.

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 score0.315
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

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)0.0600.011

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOil Spill Detection and MitigationFrench-language works237,207