MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032916013 · doi:10.1144/1467-787302-022

Elemental mercury in copper, silver and gold ores: an unexpected contribution to Lake Superior sediments with global implications

2002· article· en· W2032916013 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
W. Charles Kerfoot, Sandra L. Harting, Ronald Rossmann, John A. Robbins

Bibliographic record

VenueGeochemistry Exploration Environment Analysis · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMercury (programming language)CopperElemental mercuryGeochemistryGeologyEnvironmental scienceMetallurgyMaterials scienceChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mercury and copper inventories are low in central Lake Superior and increase markedly towards the Keweenaw Peninsula. Total copper flux to Lake Superior sediments averages 5.0 ± 2.5 μg cm −2 year −1 (mean ± 95% confidence limits), whereas mercury flux averages 7.5 ± 4.2 ng cm −2 year −1 . In the Keweenaw Peninsula region, copper, mercury and silver inventories are elevated and highly correlated. High copper, silver and mercury inventories can be traced back to shoreline stamp sand piles, the parent ores and to smelters. Mercury occurs in elemental form, probably as a natural amalgam, in native metal (copper, silver, gold) deposits and was liberated as volatile Hg 0 during on-site copper smelting. Stamp mills discharged at least 364 Mt of ‘stamp sand’ tailings, whereas smelters refined 5 Mt of native copper, liberating together at least 42 t of mercury. The Keweenaw situation is not unique, as mineral-bound mercury is commonplace in US and Canadian Greenstone Belts and is of worldwide occurrence in massive base metal ores.

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)0.000
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 score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations23
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeochemistry Exploration Environment AnalysisSame topicMercury impact and mitigation studiesFrench-language works237,207