MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7097811931

REMEDIATION OF A FORMER DRY CLEANER SITE SUPPORTED BY A TIER 2 RISK ASSESSMENT

2014· article· en· W7097811931 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicGroundwater flow and contamination studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental remediationRisk assessmentGroundwaterTier 1 networkContaminated landEnvironmental qualityLand useSoil qualityEnvironmental impact assessment
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The historical presence of dry cleaning operations at a shopping center in Spruce Grove, Alberta (the “Site”) had resulted in the release of perchloroethylene and its degradation products to the soil and groundwater both on and off the Site. Soil and groundwater quality data were compared and found to exceed applicable land use Tier 1 environmental quality guidelines for Alberta (CCME 2002). Several technical constraints prevented the impacted area from being remediated to the Tier 1 guidelines in a cost effective and timely manner. In order to understand the potential risks to human and environmental receptors at the shopping plaza a risk assessment was undertaken at the Site. The site-specific risk assessment concluded that there were no immediate risks to both on-Site and off-Site receptors. However, it was determined that the development of Tier 2 soil and groundwater quality guidelines in accordance with AENV 2001 would likely result in less stringent remediation guidelines, but still offer the same level of protection to both on and off-Site receptors. A conservative approach was undertaken such that the land use

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.290

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGroundwater flow and contamination studies→French-language works237,207→