MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387372642 · doi:10.1111/sum.12973

The relationship between site history and human health risks: Lessons from 13 years of contaminated land risk assessments in Victoria, Australia

2023· article· en· W4387372642 on OpenAlexaff
Victor Kabay, Clare Boni Papaleo, Suzie M. Reichman

Bibliographic record

VenueSoil Use and Management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnvironmental Justice and Health Disparities
Canadian institutionsGolder Associates (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBTEXHuman healthEnvironmental scienceAuditRisk assessmentPetroleumEnvironmental healthEnvironmental planningEnvironmental protectionEthylbenzeneBusinessChemistryMedicineAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Site history is widely recognized as one of the key determinants of the nature and scale of contamination that is likely to be present at a location. While there is vast anecdotal and empirical evidence on the relationship between site history and risk of exposure to pollution, few attempts have been made to systematically collate data across sites to rigorously identify such trends. This study presents an analysis of human health risk metrics extracted from all 1732 contaminated land environmental audits published in Victoria, Australia between 2006 and 2018. The contaminating activities found to be most likely associated with elevated risks to human health were service stations, fuel depots, dry cleaners, gasworks, mechanical parts manufacturers, imported fill and unknown offsite sources generating regional groundwater pollution (usually polluted with trichloroethene). The ten chemical contaminants most frequently assessed in human health risk assessment reports included (in order): benzene, C>10–16 petroleum hydrocarbons, naphthalene, C6–10 petroleum hydrocarbons, xylenes, trichloroethene, toluene, ethylbenzene, benzo(a)pyrene, and tetrachloroethene. The findings of this report include recommendations to develop regulatory guideline values in Australia for trimethylbenzenes, heavy fraction petroleum hydrocarbons (C>16), and trans‐1,2‐dicholoethene, and to strengthen the evidence base informing risks associated with light fraction petroleum hydrocarbons (C6–16) and trichloroethene. To the author's knowledge, this study is the first to extract risk metrics from environmental audit reports and provides a strong evidence base to help regulators, academics and commercial practitioners rank and prioritize sites based on their site history and associated risks.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.846

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 head0.183
GPT teacher head0.417
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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSoil Use and ManagementSame topicEnvironmental Justice and Health DisparitiesFrench-language works237,207