MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390745960 · doi:10.1002/agg2.20463

Oil spill soil remediation using thermal desorption: Project synthesis and outcomes

2024· article· en· W4390745960 on OpenAlexaff
Peter O’Brien, Thomas M. DeSutter, Francis X. M. Casey, Abbey F. Wick, Zachary J. Bartsch, S. J. Croat, Samantha Struffert

Bibliographic record

VenueAgrosystems Geosciences & Environment · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsStantec (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTopsoilSubsoilEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental remediationLand reclamationSoil scienceEnvironmental engineeringSoil waterContaminationEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Farmland within the Williston Basin of North Dakota was the site of the largest terrestrial oil spill to date in the United States in 2013. Over 3200 m3 of oil was released into the topsoil and subsoil, creating a risk to soil, water, and air resources. The purpose of this document is to provide a summary of results from a 7‐year project investigating the impacts of how thermal desorption (TD), the method used to remediate topsoil and subsoil, impacted contaminant reduction, soil function, and plant productivity simultaneously with site remediation. Soil disturbance and TD decreased soil organic matter and microbial communities, resulting in decreased soil function and plant production. However, TD did not reduce soil microbial recovery 4 years after treatment. Blending TD‐treated soil with uncontaminated topsoil appeared to minimize these negative effects and promote recovery of soil function. These findings provided critical information to stakeholders in the understanding of soil remediation and reclamation in this region.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgrosystems Geosciences & EnvironmentSame topicRangeland and Wildlife ManagementFrench-language works237,207