MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390275265 · doi:10.29169/1927-5129.2023.19.16

Choice of Remediation Technology for a Contaminated Soil by 1,2-Dichloroethane (DCA)

2023· article· en· W4390275265 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
García Villanueva Luis Antonio, González Herrera Carlos Raúl, Isidro Guadalupe Ana Lucero

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Basic & Applied Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnvironmental Justice and Health Disparities
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental remediationEnvironmental scienceContaminationSoil contaminationSoil vapor extractionHazardous waste1,2-DichloroethaneSoil remediationRemedial actionWaste managementSoil waterContaminated landEnvironmental engineeringEngineeringChemistrySoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Mexico, there are 635 sites contaminated by hazardous waste, due to the fact that a few years ago there was no legislation to support and guarantee environmental protection. This led to decades of contamination of soils and bodies of water. In the following case study, landfills were identified where 1,2-dichloroethane was stored, generating contaminated soil in this location, even affecting subway water bodies. The aim of this work is to identify the technologies for the remediation of contaminated soils, taking into account the affected site, the characteristics of the residue, costs and time, in order to determine the most effective and ideal technology. The Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable (FRTR) will be considered as the counterpart for the selection of treatment technologies, published by the Remediation Bureau. The best technology for site remediation is "Soil Vapor Extraction", being the most ideal and efficient in terms of time and cost, and generating a high impact remediation outcome. The counterpart (FRTR) is considered to be a support tool that provides the most appropriate technologies for the remediation of a contaminated site.

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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.456
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Basic & Applied SciencesSame topicEnvironmental Justice and Health DisparitiesFrench-language works237,207