MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996500707 · doi:10.1080/15275920500351700

Distinguishing Between Naturally and Anthropogenically Elevated Arsenic at an Abandoned Arctic Military Site

2005· article· en· W1996500707 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Iris Koch, Angela Duso, Corinne Haug, Christy Miskelly, Melanie Sommerville, Paula G. Smith, Kenneth J. Reimer

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Forensics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicArsenic contamination and mitigation
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
FundersBasic Energy SciencesNational Research Council CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinistère de la Défense NationaleOffice of ScienceSimon Fraser UniversityU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsArsenicEnvironmental chemistryArsenateEnvironmental scienceArcticSoil waterChemistryEcologySoil scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soil arsenic exceedances of a project specific cleanup criterion at an abandoned military site in Nunavut, Canada, prompted a study to distinguish the arsenic source as natural or anthropogenic. Principal components analysis and X-ray absorption near edge spectroscopic analysis revealed that samples containing arsenic above and below the criterion value were indistinguishable with respect to their soil elemental “fingerprints,” and their exact chemical form of arsenic (arsenate). Bioaccessibility measurements, used to assess the potential risk from exposure, also demonstrated the similar release of low concentrations of arsenic from all soils tested. Therefore, elemental fingerprint, chemical speciation, and bioaccessibility were useful tools to demonstrate that elevated arsenic levels—up to 40 mg/kg—were likely natural in origin. Moreover, the natural arsenic likely does not pose an environmental or a human health concern at this Arctic site.

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)0.000
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 score0.600
Threshold uncertainty score0.806

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations9
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental ForensicsSame topicArsenic contamination and mitigationFrench-language works237,207