MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017299067 · doi:10.3402/ijch.v64i5.18031

The potential impact of climate on human exposure to contaminants in the Arctic

2005· article· en· W2017299067 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa Kraemer, James Berner, Christopher Furgal

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Circumpolar Health · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiotaEnvironmental scienceArcticClimate changeContaminationThe arcticCryosphereEcologyPhysical geographySea iceOceanographyGeographyGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many northern indigenous populations are exposed to elevated concentrations of contaminants through traditional food and many of these contaminants come from regions exterior to the Arctic. Global contaminant pathways include the atmosphere, ocean currents, and river outflow, all of which are affected by climate. In addition to these pathways, precipitation, animal availability, UV radiation, cryosphere degradation and human industrial activities in the North are also affected by climate change. The processes governing contaminant behaviour in both the physical and biological environment are complex and therefore, in order to understand how climate change will affect the exposure of northern people to contaminants, we must have a better understanding of the processes that influence how contaminants behave in the Arctic environment. Furthermore, to predict changes in contaminant levels, we need to first have a good understanding of current contaminant levels in the Arctic environment, biota and human populations. For this reason, it is critical that both spatial and temporal trends in contaminant levels are monitored in the environment, biota and human populations from all the Arctic regions.

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)0.004
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 score0.236
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.415 · 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

Citations23
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Circumpolar HealthSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207