MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986227031 · doi:10.1139/s07-005

Local and regional factors affecting atmospheric mercury speciation at a remote location

2007· article· en· W1986227031 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Helen Manolopoulos, James J. Schauer, Mark D. Purcell, Todd M. Rudolph, Mark L. Olson, Bruce Rodger, Dave P. Krabbenhoft

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Engineering and Science · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersColorado State UniversityU.S. Department of StateU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
KeywordsMercury (programming language)Environmental chemistryEnvironmental scienceParticulatesMERCUREDeposition (geology)ChemistryEcologyGeologySedimentGeomorphologyBiologyAnalytical Chemistry (journal)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Atmospheric concentrations of elemental (Hg0), reactive gaseous (RGM), and particulate (PHg) mercury were measured at two remote sites in the midwestern United States. Concurrent measurements of Hg0, PHg, and RGM obtained at Devil’s Lake and Mt. Horeb, located approximately 65 km apart, showed that Hg0 and PHg concentrations were affected by regional, as well as local sources, while RGM was mainly impacted by local sources. Plumes reaching the Devil’s Lake site from a nearby coal-fired power plant significantly impacted SO2 and RGM concentrations at Devil’s Lake, but had little impact on Hg0. Our findings suggest that traditional modeling approaches to assess sources of mercury deposited that utilize source emissions and large-scale grids may not be sufficient to predict mercury deposition at sensitive locations due to the importance of small-scale sources and processes. We suggest the use of a receptor-based monitoring to better understand mercury source–receptor relationships.

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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations26
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Engineering and ScienceSame topicMercury impact and mitigation studiesFrench-language works237,207