MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W69009379 · doi:10.2166/wqrj.2001.024

Contaminated Sediment Management: the Canadian Experience

2001· article· en· W69009379 on OpenAlexaffabout
Roger Santiago, Jean-Pierre Pelletier

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Quality Research Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIntegrated Water Resources Management
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDredgingRemedial actionWater qualityEnvironmental remediationEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental protectionAction planSedimentPollutantPollutionEnvironmental planningWater resource managementContaminationEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Since the beginning of North America's industrialization, the Great Lakes have been negatively impacted by the discharge of industrial, agricultural and municipal pollutants. The governments of Canada and the United States have recognized that the accumulation of pollutants within the bottom sediment and the water column has had a detrimental effect on the Great Lakes ecosystem. In 1972, Canada and the United States signed the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, which established common water quality objectives and commitments to programs and other measures to achieve these objectives. This included measures for the abatement and control of pollution from dredging activities. By 1985, the International Joint Commission, a body established by the two countries to provide advice on boundary water issues, identified 43 Areas of Concern where impaired water quality prevented full beneficial use of rivers, bays, harbours and ports. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, amended in 1987, committed both countries to concentrate remediation efforts in these 43 Areas of Concern. This led to the development of Remedial Action Plans to assess and remediate contamination problems. Contaminated sediment was identified in all of these Areas of Concern. In 1989, the Canadian government created the 5-year $125-million Great Lakes Action Plan in support of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Of this, $55 million was allocated to the Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund for the 17 Canadian Areas of Concern. A portion of the Cleanup Fund was designated for the development and demonstration of technologies for assessment, removal and treatment of contaminated sediment. Since its creation, the Remediation Technologies Program, established under the Cleanup Fund, has successfully performed 3 full-scale remediation projects, 11 pilot-scale technology demonstrations and 29 bench-scale tests. In addition to these projects, the program also evaluated existing sediment management practices and processes.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.754

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.008
Science and technology studies0.0130.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations3
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Quality Research JournalSame topicIntegrated Water Resources ManagementFrench-language works237,207