MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006866917 · doi:10.1139/z05-053

Trace elements in tissues of phocid seals harvested in the Alaskan and Canadian Arctic: influence of age and feeding ecology

2005· article· en· W2006866917 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Larissa-A. Dehn, Gay Sheffield, Erich H. Follmann, Lawrence K. Duffy, Dana L. Thomas, Gerald R. Bratton, Robert J. Taylor, Todd M. O’Hara

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Geological Survey
KeywordsPhocaBiologyArcticZoologyEcologyAnimal science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Concentrations of selected trace elements (Ag, Cu, Cd, Se, Zn, THg, and MeHg) were measured in tissues of subsistence-harvested ringed (Pusa hispida (Schreber, 1775)), bearded (Erignathus barbatus (Erxleben, 1777)), and spotted (Phoca largha Pallas, 1811) seals from Alaska and ringed seals from Canada. Most variables differed significantly in tissues of phocids analyzed. Concentration of renal Cd was highest in ringed seals from Canada and bearded seals from Alaska, while spotted seals had the lowest concentrations. Concentrations of Cd increased with age to a maximum in ringed and bearded seals, followed by a slow decline with increasing age. Spotted seals had the highest proportion of MeHg to THg (%MeHg) in liver and bearded seals the lowest ratio. THg in seal tissues followed the opposite trend. %MeHg in ringed and bearded seals followed a hyperbolic decay function with age, but was highly variable in spotted seals. Seals with lesions had a higher relative occurrence of MeHg in liver. The molar ratio of Se:THg in liver exceeded 1:1 in most seals and was negatively correlated with age in ringed and spotted seals. Hepatic Ag was higher in bearded seals than in ringed and spotted seals. A correlation of Ag with age was not documented.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.692
Threshold uncertainty score0.706

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.240 · 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.

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

Citations87
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicMercury impact and mitigation studiesFrench-language works237,207