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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.659
Threshold uncertainty score0.528

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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