MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415448685 · doi:10.1017/9781316340332.007

Identifying the Contaminant Levels in River Floods That Occurred in the Past

2025· book-chapter· W4415448685 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anna Lintern, Lauren A. MacDonald, Brent B. Wolfe, Roland I. Hall, Ana Deletić, Paul Leahy, Atun Zawadzki, Patricia Gadd, David McCarthy

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2025
Typebook-chapter
Language
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGroundwater and Isotope Geochemistry
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydrology (agriculture)Flood mythFlooding (psychology)Climate changeWater pollution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter explores the potential of using sediment cores from floodplain lakes to assess contaminant levels in riverine flood deposits. It emphasises the limited knowledge about contaminants carried by floodwaters and their risks due to a lack of long-term monitoring data. Sediment cores offer a solution by preserving historical events, enabling the reconstruction of past contaminant levels. Theoretical background and methods for identifying historical flood deposits in sediment cores are discussed, along with temporal trends in waterway pollution. Case studies from Australia and Canada demonstrate the technique’s contribution to understanding the contamination levels in sediments deposited by river floods. Acknowledging the need for refinement, the chapter calls for a better understanding of uncertainties and the development of models to convert contaminant levels in flood deposits to those in the water column. Despite being in its early stages, the use of sediment cores holds great potential for enhancing flood risk assessment and management.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.167 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicGroundwater and Isotope GeochemistryFrench-language works237,207