Spatial Variability of Intake Fractions for Canadian Emission Scenarios: A Comparison between Three Resolution Scales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spatially differentiated intake fractions (iFs) linked to Canadian emissions of toxic organic chemicals were developed using the multimedia and multipathways fate and exposure model IMPACT 2002. The fate and exposure of chemicals released to the Canadian environment were modeled with a single regional mass-balance model and three models that provided multiple mass-balance regions within Canada. These three models were based on the Canadian subwatersheds (172 zones), ecozones (15 zones), and provinces (13 zones). Releases of 32 organic chemicals into water and air were considered. This was done in order to (i) assess and compare the spatial variability of iFs within and across the three levels of regionalization and (ii) compare the spatial iFs to nonspatial ones. Results showed that iFs calculated using the subwatershed resolution presented a higher spatial variability (up to 10 orders of magnitude for emissions into water) than the ones based on the ecozones and provinces, implying that higher spatial resolution could potentially reduce uncertainty in iFs and, therefore, increase the discriminating power when assessing and comparing toxic releases for known emission locations. Results also indicated that, for an unknown emission location, a model with high spatial resolution such as the subwatershed model could significantly improve the accuracy of a generic iF. Population weighted iFs span up to 3 orders of magnitude compared to nonspatial iFs calculated by the one-box model. Less significant differences were observed when comparing spatial versus nonspatial iFs from the ecozones and provinces, respectively.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".