MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008696075 · doi:10.1002/2014ms000367

An approach estimating bidirectional air‐surface exchange for gaseous elemental mercury at AMNet sites

2014· article· en· W2008696075 on OpenAlexaff
L. Paige Wright, Leiming Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceAtmospheric sciencesMercury (programming language)Deposition (geology)CanopyElemental mercuryEnvironmental chemistryMeteorologyChemistryGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The bidirectional air‐surface exchange for gaseous elemental mercury (GEM) and existing measurements of the compensation points over a variety of canopy types are reviewed. Deposition and emission of GEM are dependent on several factors such as the type of canopy, temperature, season, atmospheric GEM concentrations, and meteorological conditions, with compensation points varying between 0.5 and 33 ng m−3. Emissions tend to increase from the spring to summer seasons, as the GEM accumulates in the foliage of the vegetation. A strong dependence on solar radiation has been observed, with higher emissions under light conditions. A bidirectional air‐surface exchange flux model is proposed for estimating GEM fluxes at a two‐hourly time resolution for the National Atmospheric Deposition Program's, Atmospheric Mercury Network (AMNet) sites. Compared to the unidirectional dry deposition model used in Zhang et al. (2012), two additional parameters, stomatal and soil emission potential, were needed in the bidirectional model and were chosen based on knowledge gained in the literature review and model sensitivity test results. Application of this bidirectional model to AMNet sites have produced annual net deposition fluxes comparable to those estimated in Zhang et al. (2012) at the majority of the sites. In this study, the net GEM dry deposition has been estimated separately for each dominant land use type surrounding each site, and this approach is also recommended for future calculations for easy application of the results to assessments of the mercury effects on various ecosystems.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations31
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advances in Modeling Earth SystemsSame topicMercury impact and mitigation studiesFrench-language works237,207