MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988312653 · doi:10.1139/f99-237

Mercury speciation in the Lower St. Lawrence Estuary

2000· article· en· W1988312653 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Daniel Cossa, Charles Gobeil

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitut Français de Recherche pour l'Exploitation de la Mer
KeywordsEstuaryWater columnMercury (programming language)Environmental chemistryMethylmercuryBiotaSedimentPelagic zoneOrganic matterSurface waterEnvironmental scienceOceanographyChemistryEcologyGeologyBioaccumulationBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mercury speciation was determined in the water column and sediment pore waters of the Lower St. Lawrence Estuary, and total Hg (HgT) was measured in seven biological species, including pelagic and demersal fish and crustaceans. In water, HgT concentrations ranged from 1.8 to 7.8 pM, with the highest levels in surface waters and the lowest in deep waters (1.8-2.9 pM). HgT concentrations in sediment pore waters were 10 times as high, with methyl mercury levels of 5.1-14.4 pM. Reactive Hg (HgR) generally accounted for around 20% of HgT in the water column and <30% in pore waters. The distribution of elemental Hg and HgR suggests that Hg(II) is reduced in surface waters and that inorganic Hg is mobilized during remineralization of organic matter at the sediment surface. In the biota, concentrations ranged between 0.05 and 0.89 nmol·g -1 (wet weight). Feeding habits and habitats account for these observations. Results suggest that the sediment is the main source of Hg contamination for the biota. A mass balance calculation showed that the Hg flux entering the lower estuary from the St. Lawrence River is equivalent to the amount buried in estuarine sediments.

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)0.001
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 score0.190
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations99
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicMercury impact and mitigation studiesFrench-language works237,207