MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034436297 · doi:10.1021/es500631g

Grizzly Bear Hair Reveals Toxic Exposure to Mercury through Salmon Consumption

2014· article· en· W2034436297 on OpenAlexaff
Marie Noël, Jody Spence, Kate Harris, Charles T. Robbins, Jennifer K. Fortin, Peter S. Ross, Jennie R. Christensen

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Science & Technology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaVancouver AquariumStantec (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMercury (programming language)Grizzly BearsEnvironmental chemistryBiomonitoringEnvironmental scienceChemistryFisheryBiologyUrsusEnvironmental healthPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mercury obtained from the diet accumulates in mammalian hair as it grows thus preserving a record of mercury intake over the growth period of a given hair segment. We adapted a microanalysis approach, using laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry, to characterize temporal changes in mercury exposure and uptake in wild and captive grizzly bears. Captive grizzlies fed diets containing known and varied amounts of mercury provided data to allow prediction of Hg ingestion rates in wild bears. Here, we show, for the first time, that 70% of the coastal grizzly bears sampled had Hg levels exceeding the neurochemical effect level proposed for polar bears. In a context where the international community is taking global actions to reduce Hg emissions through the "Minamata Convention on Mercury", our study provides valuable information on the exposure to mercury of these grizzly bears already under many threats.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations36
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Science & TechnologySame topicMercury impact and mitigation studiesFrench-language works237,207