Bibliographic record
Abstract
The sediment makes up the sea floor and plays an important role as a habitats for living things in the sea. However, pollution of coastal sediment due to internal and external factors such as inflow of contaminants from land and self-pollution becoming more serious, the needs for management of sediment that play an important role in ecology, is increasing. In particular, the review and evaluation of the effects of sediment in marine development projects including reclamation and dredging, have significance in terms of proactive protection and management of surrounding ecosystems. This study proposed the improvement measures for marine sediment management standards on the sea area utilization consultation for the development of public water. For the purpose, The evaluation and management standards of domestic and overseas marine sediments were reviewed and compared. The sediment environment guidelines under the Marine Environment Management Act of Korea were reviewed. Accordingly, the cases of Canada and NOAA, which have various evaluation standards consist of comprehensive factors, were analyzed. For analysis of operational cases, the port and fishing port development projects for the last five years (2016-2020) that are considered to have the greatest impact on sediments among the sea area use consultations were also reviewed. Finally, this study suggested that the assessment factors for ecological hazards and potential human risks should be considered in the sediment environmental standards in the sea area utilization consultation system.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".