DETERMINAÇÃO DE GLIFOSATO E ÁCIDO AMINOMETILFOSFÔNICO EM ÁGUAS SUPERFICIAIS DO ARROIO PASSO DO PILÃO
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Para investigar a presença do herbicida Glifosato na microbacia hidrográfica arroio Passo do Pilão foram coletadas amostras de água em 15 distintos pontos no arroio Passo do Pilão, nos períodos de 30 e 60 dias após a aplicação do herbicida (DAAH), as quais foram analisadas por cromatografia a líquido de alta eficiência (CLAE). As análises revelaram a presença do herbicida nas águas superficiais dessa microbacia, tanto nas amostras após 30 dias de aplicação do Glifosato como nas de 60 DAAH. Concentrações elevadas (acima de 100 ppb) foram detectadas, principalmente em pontos próximos às áreas de intenso cultivo. As concentrações detectadas foram menores que 500 e 700 ppb, limites de concentrações máximas permitidas para o Glifosato pela legislação brasileira e pela Agência de Proteção Ambiental dos Estados Unidos, respectivamente. DETERMINATION OF GLYPHOSATE AND AMINOMETHYLPHOSPHONIC ACID IN SUPERFICIAL WATERS OF ARROIO PASSO DO PILÃO Abstract To investigation the presence of Glyphosate herbicide in Arroio Passo do Pilão watershed, samples of water were collected in 15 distinct points in Arroio Passo do Pilão, in period of 30 and 60 days after herbicide application (DAHA), which were analysed by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). The analysis revealed the presence of the herbicide in superficial areas of this watershed, even in the samples after 30 days of Glyphosate applicatication as in 60 DAHA. High concentrations (above 100 ppb) were detected, mainly in points near to intense cultivation areas. The concentrations detected were smaller than 500 and 700 ppb, limits of the maximum concentrations allowed for Glyphosate by the brazilian legislation and by the Environmental Protection Agency of United States, respectivelly.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".