MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3145585531 · doi:10.3808/jeil.202100049

A Review of Response Options to Accelerate the Recovery of Oiled Shorelines

2021· review· en· W3145585531 on OpenAlexaffabout
Edward H. Owens, Elliott Taylor, Gary A. Sergy, Chunjiang An, Z. Chen, K. Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Informatics Letters · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicOil Spill Detection and Mitigation
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaConcordia UniversityAlberta Environment and Protected Areas
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShoreEnvironmental sciencePetroleum engineeringSedimentOil spillGeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rate at which oil on shorelines weathers and attenuates is a function of the character of the oil on the shoreline (type and volume), the character of the shoreline materials, and the environmental setting (physical and biological). Some light crude oils or products have a very short half-life and may persist for only hours or days whereas other oils may persist for months to years. The objective of this review is to summarize how and why the different commonly used and available response options can contribute to accelerating shoreline recovery and to explain the potential consequences of these actions. Globally, the most widely used shoreline treatment activity is simple physical removal by manual or mechanical cleanup methods with off-site disposal. The explanation for this situation lies in the fact that this method is typically quick, easy, and requires no special skill sets or dedicated equipment. The second most widely used treatment method is low-pressure flushing or washing. A concern with this option is that typically little or no oil is recovered, unless the oil loading on the shore is very high and, although some of the oil may be broken down and dispersed in the water column and then biodegraded, if the method generates oil residue-sediment aggregates these may be negatively buoyant when the sediments are granular (> 1 mm) or coarser. Many guides and manuals describe the mechanics and implementation of these and other treatment methods; this review evaluates the state-of-the art with respect to currently available and widely applicable treatment options to accelerate oiled shore- line recovery. This knowledge is intended to support the creation of a science-based Shoreline Response Program (SRP) Decision Support Tool that is under development as part the Fisheries and Oceans Canada Multi-Partner Research Initiative (MPRI) program. The primary benefit of this tool is to enhance the quality of strategic planning regarding shoreline response intervention and non-intervention decisions related, in part, to Alternative Response Technologies for shoreline treatment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Informatics LettersSame topicOil Spill Detection and MitigationFrench-language works237,207