MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030517027 · doi:10.5094/apr.2012.030

Concentration and source origin of lanthanoids in the Canadian atmospheric particulate matter: a case study

2012· article· en· W2030517027 on OpenAlexaffabout
Valbona Celo, Ewa Dąbek-Złotorzyńska, Jiujiang Zhao, David T. Bowman

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmospheric Pollution Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticulatesEnvironmental chemistryEnvironmental scienceLanthanideRefining (metallurgy)PetrochemicalPollutionAir pollutionOil refineryChemistryEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ambient PM 2.5 and PM 2.5–10 samples collected at selected urban and rural sites within the Canadian National Air Pollution Surveillance (NAPS) PM 2.5 Speciation Program were analyzed for lanthanoids and other elements. The average concentrations of total lanthanoids (calculated as sum of concentrations of all elements) in PM 2.5 ranged from 0.059 to 0.334 ng m −3 . These concentrations were two times lower than in PM 2.5–10 samples and generally lower than values reported for industrial and urban areas around the world. The highest concentrations of lanthanoids were found in PM 2.5 samples collected at the Halifax NS site, located near a petroleum refining complex. In addition, La/Ce and La/Sm ratios at this site were significantly higher than their natural values. Increased La–enrichment factors were also found in Wallaceburg ON, which is located in a rural area, about 50 km downwind of two major petrochemical complexes. The results of this study demonstrate that La–enrichment factors are reliable tracers of emissions from oil refining industry.

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)0.001
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations30
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtmospheric Pollution ResearchSame topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207