MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296353925 · doi:10.3390/jmse10091310

A Comprehensive Review of Canadian Marine Oil Spill Response System through the Lens of Decanting Regulations and Practices

2022· review· en· W4296353925 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Marine Science and Engineering · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicOil Spill Detection and Mitigation
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOil spillDecantationEnvironmental scienceShoreEmergency responseWaste managementBusinessEnvironmental protectionEngineeringOceanographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Marine oil spill response operations could generate a large volume of liquid oily wastes (e.g., emulsified oil, non-emulsified oil, and wastewater) that can be up to 30 to 40 times greater than the original volume of spilled oil. Oil decanting technologies are used globally for recovering spilled oil and handling liquid wastes. Canada follows the standards set out in the MARPOL 73/78 Annex 1 International regulations in most areas, with more strict discharge requirements in certain locations. For instance, inland waters discharge should not exceed 5 ppm, and in special areas, such as the Great Lakes, the discharge standard is under 0 ppm. In the event of an oil spill, decanted seawater should be barged to shore for disposal, which significantly constrains the response capacity and efficiency of oil recovery by skimmers due to limited temporary storage space in barges and the long time and high cost of transportation. This has become one of the greatest challenges the Canadian governments and oil spill response industries are facing in Canada. Moreover, when the spill response team decides that decanting is an appropriate way to handle the spilled oil, the approval process may take a long time, which negatively impacts the spill that has already occurred. Moreover, Canada uses a 10,000-tonne planning standard for oil spill preparedness, whereas the United States uses a worst-case scenario, and Europe uses a 60,000 m3 planning standard. The existing planning threshold in Canada can cause the country to be not fully prepared when it comes to responding to a very large oil spill if one should occur. This study conducted a comprehensive review of the current Canadian oil spill response system and framework, regulations, roles and responsibilities of federal and provincial governments, existing decanting capabilities, and capacities of Canadian oil spill responders. More importantly, this study identified the gaps in the current oil spill response system and regulatory and technological barriers to oil decanting. Marine oil decanting regulations and practices in the US and selected European countries have also been reviewed to support addressing the challenges and improving the Canadian experience. It is expected that this study would help the stakeholders and professionals to better understand the oil spill response system and oil decanting status quo in Canada and facilitate Canadian governments and industries to better address the challenges in oil spill regulations and practices.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.244 · 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