MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002648831 · doi:10.1080/10934529.2013.823340

Mercury concentrations in common carp ( <i>Cyprinus carpio</i> ) in Lake Chapala, Mexico: A lakewide survey

2013· article· en· W2002648831 on OpenAlexaff
Todd Stong, Harvey Shear, José de Anda, Gerardo Ramírez, José de Jesús Díaz-Torres

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Science and Health Part A · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCyprinusMercury (programming language)CarpCommon carpFleshFisheryCyprinidaeReference doseEnvironmental scienceFish consumptionBiologyAnimal scienceFish <Actinopterygii>ToxicologyRisk assessment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous studies, based on limited data, found elevated levels of mercury in carp in Lake Chapala, Mexico. The extent of mercury contamination in carp throughout the Lake has not been determined. In order to obtain reliable information about total mercury concentration in carp (Cyprinus carpio), 262 fish from 27 sites (approximately 10 fish per site) throughout the lake were analyzed. Results were expressed as the mean and median of the results at each site. Only one of the samples exceeded Mexican National Standard (1.0 ppm) for mercury in fish flesh. We discuss these results in comparison to World Health Organization (WHO), US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) criteria; many of our samples exceed these criteria based on Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) or Reference Dose (RfD). ANOVA of four groups of mercury results clustered by distance from the Lerma showed statistically significant differences (P = 0.0071) between the group closest to, versus farthest from, the Lerma River.

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 score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.200

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations14
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Science and Health Part ASame topicMercury impact and mitigation studiesFrench-language works237,207