MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mercury (micro)biogeochemistry in polar environments

2006· review· en· W1852302845 on OpenAlexaff
Tamar Barkay, Alexandre J. Poulain

Bibliographic record

VenueFEMS Microbiology Ecology · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMercury (programming language)BiogeochemistryMethylmercuryArcticEnvironmental chemistryPolarBiologyBiogeochemical cycleAstrobiologyEcologyBioaccumulationChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The contamination of polar regions with mercury that is transported as inorganic mercury from lower latitudes has resulted in the accumulation of methylmercury in the food chain of polar environments, risking the health of humans and wildlife. This problem is likely to be particularly severe in coastal marine environments where active cycling occurs. Little is currently known about how mercury is methylated in polar environments. Relating observations on mercury deposition and transport through polar regions to knowledge of the microbiology of cold environments and considering the principles of mercury transformations as have been elucidated in temperate aquatic environments, we propose that in polar regions (1) variable pathways for mercury methylation may exist, (2) mercury bioavailability to microbial transformations may be enhanced, and (3) microbial niches within sea ice are sites where active microorganisms are localized in proximity to high concentrations of mercury. Thus, microbial transformations, and consequently mercury biogeochemistry, in the Arctic and Antarctic are both unique and common to these processes in lower latitudes, and understanding their dynamics is needed for the management of mercury-contaminated polar environments.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.659
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.006

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.273
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations54
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFEMS Microbiology EcologySame topicMercury impact and mitigation studiesFrench-language works237,207