MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Worldwide Residential Soil Regulatory Guidance Values for Chlorinated Ethanes

2011· article· en· W4231569654 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aaron A. Jennings

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnvironmental Justice and Health Disparities
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPollutantValue (mathematics)Confidence intervalReductive dechlorinationEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental chemistryToxicologyContaminationEnvironmental engineeringChemistryMathematicsStatisticsEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Surface soil contamination is often regulated using guidance values that specify the maximum amount of pollutant that can be present without prompting a regulatory response. In the United States, there are at least 89 value sets (and worldwide there are another 29) that provide guidance for at least one of the nine chlorinated ethanes. The most commonly regulated chlorinated ethane is 1,2-dichloroethane (108 values), and it is the third most commonly regulated synthetic organic surface soil contaminant. Pentachloroethane (17 values) is the least regulated chlorinated ethane. Overall, there are at least 690 guidance values for chlorinated ethanes. This analysis explores the origin, magnitude, and form of the variability of these values. Results indicate that the values span from 3.7 to 7.6 orders of magnitude and are distributed in patterns similar to log-normal random variables. Less than 20% of these values are similar to those of national regulatory agencies such as the U.S. EPA or the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, but more than 60% of the values fall within the 95% confidence interval bounds of the uncertainty in U.S. EPA risk model calculations.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.234 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations12
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental EngineeringSame topicEnvironmental Justice and Health DisparitiesFrench-language works237,207