MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3173291195 · doi:10.1139/er-2020-0122

Use of the National Pollutant Release Inventory in environmental research: a scoping review

2021· review· en· W3173291195 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Alicia Berthiaume

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Reviews · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnvironmental Justice and Health Disparities
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPollutantEnvironmental planningGovernment (linguistics)Geospatial analysisEnvironmental resource managementBusinessEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental protectionGeographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI), which has been collecting and disseminating pollutant data since 1994, is Canada’s legislated, publicly accessible inventory of pollutant releases (to air, water, and land), disposals, and transfers (for treatment, recycling, or energy recovery). The public availability of NPRI data is a key program output, initially driven by the community-right-to-know movement and now also compelled by the need to support a myriad of environmental science and policy efforts at various scales. Twenty-five years after the inception of the NPRI, this scoping review of peer-reviewed literature (up to 2019) was undertaken to better understand the nature and extent of uptake of NPRI information by researchers, namely, who are using it and how. The findings show that NPRI use in peer-reviewed research has increased steadily since 1997. NPRI information is implicated in 225 scholarly journal articles between 1994 and 2019. The main users are from the Government of Canada and Canadian universities, though many users from diverse backgrounds beyond these categories and beyond Canada were also noted. Researchers were primarily leveraging NPRI data on pollutants released to air, the focus of which was most often on the criteria air contaminants and metals (mercury). Less popular were data on water releases, land releases, and disposal data, while there were no examples of researchers using data on transfers. Seven prominent themes arose pertaining to the area(s) of interest of studies that use NPRI information, including geospatial analyses, environmental monitoring, predictive modelling, industrial sectors, other pollutant inventories, human health outcomes, and policy or program analysis. Several other study themes were also noted relating to socioeconomic issues, waste treatment and remediation, climate change, indigenous groups, and biomonitoring. Future opportunities to increase NPRI use in research in general, and in understudied areas in particular, as well as to increase the use of underutilized NPRI variables, remain.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.855
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.417
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.066 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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

Citations24
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental ReviewsSame topicEnvironmental Justice and Health DisparitiesFrench-language works237,207