MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986757067 · doi:10.1039/b818593j

Comparison of sediment quality guidelines (SQGs) for the assessment of metal contamination in marine and estuarine environments

2009· review· en· W1986757067 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Monitoring · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHeavy metals in environment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationCentre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science
KeywordsEstuarySedimentComparabilityEnvironmental scienceContaminationEnvironmental engineeringOceanographyGeologyEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sediment quality guidelines (SQGs) are an important tool for the assessment of contamination in marine and estuarine sediments. Although such guidelines are not definitive indicators of toxicity, they can have a high predictive ability and are a vital tool for identifying areas with potentially adverse biological effects. In the present study, 15 sets of common SQGs have been compared, including values for Australia/New Zealand, Canada, Hong Kong, Norway, the Netherlands, the USA and regions within the USA (Puget Sound/Washington, New York and Florida). The majority of these SQGs are based on the weight-of-evidence approach. In particular, the sub-group of TEL/PEL-based values have a very high degree of comparability; values not belonging to this uniform group show substantial variations.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.327 · 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