MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7042420771

Plant species suitability for reclamation of oil sands consolidated tailings

2002· article· en· W7042420771 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrokinetic Soil Remediation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSyncrude
KeywordsLand reclamationTailingsForbDewateringOil sandsRevegetationNative plantVegetation (pathology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oil sand companies are evaluating techniques to solidify wet slurries and produce a non-segregating tailings stream known as consolidated or composite tailings (CT). Successful establishment of vegetation directly on CT can contribute to dewatering and assist in meeting reclamation objectives. The goal of this research was to develop a list of plant species which may be suitable for dewatering and reclamation of consolidated tailings. A growth chamber study was conducted in 1999 and a greenhouse study in 2001. In total, 44 native grasses, 50 native forbs, 8 introduced grasses and 4 introduced forbs were tested. The density of seedlings was recorded for 6 to 10 weeks depending on the experiment. Maximum emergence and establishment were calculated, and species vigour evaluated. Height and leaf number were measured in 1999. Grasses had higher average emergence and establishment (19.6% and 29.8%) than forbs (16.1% and 7.9%) in both studies. Introduced species had higher emergence and establishment (56.4% for grasses and 37.4% for forbs) compared to native species in CT treatments. All species except introduced grasses had higher emergence in control treatments compared to CT treatments. Field research needs to be conducted to further test the 14 grasses and 6 forbs identified in these studies as having potential for biological dewatering and reclamation of consolidated tailings.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score0.638

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.162
Teacher spread0.151 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicElectrokinetic Soil Remediation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207