MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4293258373 · doi:10.4095/330556

A report on water quality monitoring in Quesnel Lake, British Columbia, subsequent to the Mount Polley tailings dam spill, using optical satellite imagery

2022· report· en· W4293258373 on OpenAlexaffabout
M Hodul, H. Peter White, Anders Knudby

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil erosion and sediment transport
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTailingsEnvironmental scienceSurface runoffWater qualityHydrology (agriculture)DredgingTailings damSedimentGeologyOceanographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the early morning on the 4th of August 2014, a tailings dam near Quesnel, BC burst, spilling approximately 25 million m3 of runoff containing heavy metal elements into nearby Quesnel Lake (Byrne et al. 2018). The runoff slurry, which included lead, arsenic, selenium, and vanadium spilled through Hazeltine Creek, scouring its banks and picking up till and forest cover on the way, and ultimately ended up in Quesnel Lake, whose water level rose by 1.5 m as a result. While the introduction of heavy metals into Quesnel Lake was of environmental concern, the additional till and forest cover scoured from the banks of Hazeltine Creek added to the lake has also been of concern to salmon spawning grounds. Immediate repercussions of the spill involved the damage of sensitive environments along the banks and on the lake bed, the closing of the seasonal salmon fishery in the lake, and a change in the microbial composition of the lake bed (Hatam et al. 2019). In addition, there appears to be a seasonal resuspension of the tailings sediment due to thermal cycling of the water and surface winds (Hamilton et al. 2020). While the water quality of Quesnel Lake continues to be monitored for the tailings sediments, primarily by members at the Quesnel River Research Centre, the sample-and-test methods of water quality testing used, while highly accurate, are expensive to undertake, and not spatially exhaustive. The use of remote sensing techniques, though not as accurate as lab testing, allows for the relatively fast creation of expansive water quality maps using sensors mounted on boats, planes, and satellites (Ritchie et al. 2003). The most common method for the remote sensing of surface water quality is through the use of a physics-based semianalytical model which simulates light passing through a water column with a given set of Inherent Optical Properties (IOPs), developed by Lee et al. (1998) and commonly referred to as a Radiative Transfer Model (RTM). The RTM forward-models a wide range of water-leaving spectral signatures based on IOPs determined by a mix of water constituents, including natural materials and pollutants. Remote sensing imagery is then used to invert the model by finding the modelled water spectrum which most closely resembles that seen in the imagery (Brando et al 2009). This project set out to develop an RTM water quality model to monitor the water quality in Quesnel Lake, allowing for the entire surface of the lake to be mapped at once, in an effort to easily determine the timing and extent of resuspension events, as well as potentially investigate greening events reported by locals. The project intended to use a combination of multispectral imagery (Landsat-8 and Sentinel-2), as well as hyperspectral imagery (DESIS), combined with field calibration/validation of the resulting models. The project began in the Autumn before the COVID pandemic, with plans to undertake a comprehensive fieldwork campaign to gather model calibration data in the summer of 2020. Since a province-wide travel shutdown and social distancing procedures made it difficult to carry out water quality surveying in a small boat, an insufficient amount of fieldwork was conducted to suit the needs of the project. Thus, the project has been put on hold, and the primary researcher has moved to a different project. This document stands as a report on all of the work conducted up to April 2021, intended largely as an instructional document for researchers who may wish to continue the work once fieldwork may freely and safely resume. This research was undertaken at the University of Ottawa, with supporting funding provided by the Earth Observations for Cumulative Effects (EO4CE) Program Work Package 10b: Site Monitoring and Remediation, Canada Centre for Remote Sensing, through the Natural Resources Canada Research Affiliate Program (RAP).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoil erosion and sediment transport→French-language works237,207→