MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036452987 · doi:10.1029/2006gl028866

Emissions of gaseous mercury from biomass burning in South America in 2005 observed during CARIBIC flights

2007· article· en· W2036452987 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ralf Ebinghaus, F. Šlemr, Carl A. M. Brenninkmeijer, P. van Velthoven, Andreas Zahn, M. Hermann, Debbie O’Sullivan, D. E. Oram

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiomass burningEnvironmental scienceSouthern HemisphereMercury (programming language)Atmospheric sciencesNorthern HemisphereMeteorologyClimatologyGeographyAerosolGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plumes of biomass burning effluents were observed during CARIBIC flights between São Paulo and Santiago de Chile on August 31 and October 5, 2005, as well as during the last part of the flight from Frankfurt to São Paulo on October 4, 2005. Total gaseous mercury (TGM) correlated with CO on August 31 and October 4 yielding a TGM/CO emission ratio of (1.2 ± 0.2) × 10 −7 and (2.4 ± 1.0) × 10 −7 mol/mol, respectively. No significant TGM/CO correlation was observed on October 5 probably because of variable background concentrations of both gases. The TGM/CO emission ratios observed here over South America fall within the rather narrow range of (0.67–2.4) × 10 −7 mol/mol reported hitherto for sites geographically as different as South Africa, Canada, and the U.S.A. A total average emission of 437 Tg CO/yr from biomass burning over the years 1996–2000 implies an average TGM emission of 210–750 t/yr from biomass burning, representing 3–11% of all mercury emissions. TGM emissions from biomass burning are likely to be larger than anthropogenic emissions in the southern hemisphere during the burning season in August–October.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.841
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations82
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicMercury impact and mitigation studiesFrench-language works237,207