MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W142426465 · doi:10.2166/wqrj.2005.043

Analyzing the Spatial Distribution of Sediment Contamination in the Lower Great Lakes

2005· article· en· W142426465 on OpenAlexaffabout
K. Wayne Forsythe, Chris Marvin

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Quality Research Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHeavy metals in environment
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceHexachlorobenzeneSedimentContaminationSpatial distributionKrigingMercury (programming language)Hydrology (agriculture)Environmental chemistryPollutantGeologyEcologyRemote sensingGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Despite significant reductions in contaminant concentrations over the past 30 years, large areas within Lake Erie and Lake Ontario still exceed Canadian sediment quality guidelines. Hexachlorobenzene (HCB), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), lead (Pb) and mercury (Hg) can persist for long periods of time in the environment and cause significant ecosystem damage. Analyses of the spatial distribution of these contaminants were carried out using a GIS-based kriging technique. Initially, statistically valid results were obtained for three of four contaminants in Lake Erie (HCB, Pb, Hg) and two of four (HCB, Hg) in Lake Ontario. Acceptable concentration estimates were subsequently achieved for all contaminants following log-normal transformation kriging analyses. In general, the concentration of contaminants was lower in sediment collected in Lake Erie than in Lake Ontario. In many areas of Lake Erie, the concentrations were under both the probable effect level (PEL) and the threshold effect level (TEL), which relate to the severity of adverse biological effects that may be expected. Greater concentrations of these contaminants were observed in Lake Ontario sediments, which can be partly explained by the bathymetry and current circulation patterns in the lake.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.461
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.302 · 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.

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

Citations23
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Quality Research JournalSame topicHeavy metals in environmentFrench-language works237,207