Profiling\nOil Sands Mixtures from Industrial Developments\nand Natural Groundwaters for Source Identification
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The\nobjective of this study was to identify chemical components\nthat could distinguish chemical mixtures in oil sands process-affected\nwater (OSPW) that had potentially migrated to groundwater in the oil\nsands development area of northern Alberta, Canada. In the first part\nof the study, OSPW samples from two different tailings ponds and a\nbroad range of natural groundwater samples were assessed with historically\nemployed techniques as Level-1 analyses, including geochemistry, total\nconcentrations of naphthenic acids (NAs) and synchronous fluorescence spectroscopy (SFS).\nWhile these analyses did not allow for reliable source differentiation,\nthey did identify samples containing significant concentrations of\noil sands acid-extractable organics (AEOs). In applying Level-2 profiling\nanalyses using electrospray ionization high resolution mass spectrometry (ESI-HRMS)\nand comprehensive multidimensional gas chromatography time-of-flight\nmass spectrometry (GC × GC-TOF/MS) to samples containing appreciable\nAEO concentrations, differentiation of natural from OSPW sources was\napparent through measurements of O<sub>2</sub>:O<sub>4</sub> ion class\nratios (ESI-HRMS) and diagnostic ions for two families of suspected monoaromatic\nacids (GC × GC-TOF/MS). The resemblance between the AEO profiles from OSPW and from 6 groundwater samples adjacent to two tailings ponds implies a common source, supporting the use of these complimentary analyses for source identification. These samples included two of upward flowing groundwater collected <1 m beneath the Athabasca River, suggesting OSPW-affected groundwater is reaching the river system.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it