Calculating site-specific soil and groundwater criteria under real field conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canada-wide standard and Alberta Environment guidelines for petroleum hydrocarbon (PHC) contaminated sites provide a tiered guideline framework. The Tier 2 approach allows the proponents to calculate soil and groundwater criteria based on site-specific conditions. The guidelines provide the models to be used for Tier 2 calculation. These models are all based on analytical solutions, requiring significant simplification of real site conditions. The guidelines also specify how the models should be used in order to simplify the application and approval procedure. The purpose and application procedure of Tier 2 models are different from the conventional modeling methodology for soil and groundwater contaminant transport models. However, in practice these differences are often ignored. Meanwhile, difficulties in model input parameter selection are frequently encountered when applying these simple models to complex site conditions. This paper introduces the Tier 2 method for determining site-specific soil and groundwater criteria to protect a surface water body. It is emphasized that the Tier 2 models should be used only for calculating site-specific criteria, not as general tools to predict contaminant migration. Model calibration is generally not meaningful for Tier 2 models. Examples are provided to demonstrate a method based on Monte Carlo simulation to evaluate and present the effect of model input parameter uncertainty. Model input parameter uncertainties are presented using parameter ranges (or probability distributions), and statistically conservative site-specific criteria are calculated. This method is easy to use, and helps to extend the Tier 2 approach to relatively complex (more real) site conditions.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".