MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018527979 · doi:10.7557/2.30.1.782

Differences in radionuclide and heavy metal concentrations found in the kidneys of barren-ground caribou from the western Northwest Territories 1994/95 to 2000/01

2010· article· en· W2018527979 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Nicholas C. Larter, John A. Nagy, Brett Elkin, C.R. Macdonald

Bibliographic record

VenueRangifer · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsGovernment of Northwest Territories
FundersAtomic Energy of Canada Limited
KeywordsCadmiumMercury (programming language)ZincSeleniumAnimal scienceRadionuclideKidneyEnvironmental chemistryChemistryBiologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aluminum, nickel, cadmium, mercury, and lead concentrations were measured in the kidney tissue of known aged barren-ground caribou wintering in the western Northwest Territories harvested during winter 1994/1995 and during winters 2000/2001 and 2001/2002. 40K, 137Cs, and 210Pb concentrations were measured in the kidney tissue of known aged barren-ground caribou during winter 2000/2001 and compared to concentrations in winter 1993/1994 reported in Macdonald et al. (1996). Renal concentrations of aluminum were higher (P<0.001)in winter 2000/2001 than winter 1994/1995. Contrastingly renal concentrations of mercury were lower (P<0.001) in winter 2000/2001 than 1994/1995. 137Cs (P<0.02), 40K (P=0.01), 210Pb (P<0.01) had lower renal concentrations in winter 2000/2001 than 1993/1994. Renal concentrations of cadmium (P<0.001) and 137Cs (P<0.04) had a positive relationship with caribou age. We also document renal concentrations of arsenic, copper, selenium, zinc, 232Th, 226Ra, and 235U in the kidneys of caribou harvested in winters 2000/2001 and 2001/2002. Renal zinc concentrations were positively correlated with the age of caribou.

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)0.000
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 score0.229
Threshold uncertainty score0.946

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRangiferSame topicMercury impact and mitigation studiesFrench-language works237,207