An evaluation of water quality at Sandhill Wetland: implications for reclaiming wetlands above soft tailings deposits in northern Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The experimental Sandhill Wetland is the first permanent reclamation of a composite tailings deposit, and annual water quality monitoring is of specific interest for evaluating and predicting long-term reclamation performance. Here, we present water chemistry monitoring data obtained from Sandhill Wetland (years 2009–2019) and compare results to twelve natural reference wetlands and to environmental quality guidelines for Alberta surface waters. By comparing water quality at Sandhill Wetland and natural sites to established guidelines, we can begin to document the natural background water quality of wetlands in the region and examine if guideline exceedances are seen in natural undisturbed environments, or appear only at active reclamation sites. At Sandhill Wetland the dominant ions in near-surface water were bicarbonate, sulfate, chloride, sodium, calcium, and magnesium. Since the first growing season concentrations for these ions have increased annually, causing concurrent increases in electrical conductivity. In year 2019, water chemistry at Sandhill Wetland was most comparable to regional saline fens, systems that exhibit elevated electrical conductivity and high sodicity. Near-surface water at Sandhill Wetland exceeded water quality guidelines for three substances/properties (dissolved chloride, iron, and total alkalinity) in the most recent year of monitoring. The saline fen natural sites also exceeded water quality guidelines for the same chemical substances/properties, suggesting guideline exceedances are a norm for some natural wetland site types in the region. Of note, in each year of monitoring at Sandhill Wetland, dissolved organic compounds evaluated in sub- and near-surface water were below detection limits.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".