MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387893629 · doi:10.1080/15226514.2023.2272275

Likelihood of using phytoremediation for mine-tailing management in Chile

2023· article· en· W4387893629 on OpenAlexaff
Estefanía Milla-Moreno, Robert D. Guy

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Phytoremediation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHeavy metals in environment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTailingsPhytoremediationEnvironmental planningGovernment (linguistics)Environmental resource managementEnvironmental scienceInclusion (mineral)BusinessBiodiversityEnvironmental protectionEcologySoil water

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chile has more than 750 mine tailings across the country, mainly distributed in the northern region, which also includes a biodiversity hotspot and the driest desert in the world. So far, tailing management has included chemical and physical stabilization of tailings, exclusively. This research examined the perceived likelihood of stakeholders, namely: Academia, Industry, environmental Non-Governmental Organizations, and Government officials, in the management of tailings and explored their attitudes toward the inclusion of plants and their associated microbes, as an additional stabilization technology, through an online questionnaire (n = 43). We aimed to answer What was the perceived likelihood of stakeholders for using phytoremediation for mine-tailing management in Chile? The consensus opinion across sectors is that there is general lack of proper tailings management in Chile. There is a critical willingness to incorporate phytoremediation, with a preference for using native plants. An absence of demonstrably successful phytoremediation projects, funding and access to suitable plants are perceived to be significant limitations. Local community involvement is considered key to successful restoration of tailings.

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 score0.417
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

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 head0.305
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of PhytoremediationSame topicHeavy metals in environmentFrench-language works237,207