MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Trends in sediment quality in Hamilton Harbour, Lake Ontario

2017· article· en· W6977231962 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Physics and Python Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarbourShoreSedimentPolychlorinated biphenylContaminationRemedial actionWater qualityHydrology (agriculture)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bottom sediment quality in Hamilton Harbour was assessed as part of a long-term research and monitoring program over a period of three decades in order to support remedial activities. Sampling locations reflected a range of shoreline activities and sources of chemical contamination to the harbour. An assessment of temporal trends in metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and polychlorinated biphenyls indicate that concentrations of all three classes of contaminants have decreased in sediments in most areas of the harbour since the period 1990–2000; however, the Windermere Arm area impacted by historical industrial activities along the southeastern shoreline area of the harbour was an exception, as trends in some metals and polychlorinated biphenyls showed overall increases. Assessment of spatial distributions of contaminants and the associated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon and polychlorinated biphenyl profiles showed that Randle Reef and Windermere Arm continue to be significant contributors to harbour-wide contamination by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and polychlorinated biphenyls, respectively. Continuation of the program after remedial activities should provide an assessment of the overall efficacy of management actions to improve environmental quality in Hamilton Harbour.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.255 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicComputational Physics and Python ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207