Lead-poisoned wildfowl in Spain: A significant threat for human consumers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Each year, 1.2 million Spanish hunters and shooters discharge 6,000 t of lead shot, of which 30-50 t are deposited in wetlands of this European country. Waterfowl may accidentally ingest lead pellets in these aquatic habitats and become fatally lead poisoned. It has been estimated that 50,000 birds die from this cause in Spain each year, but many more are chronically affected. Most of them are species that can be hunted legally, and the lead toxicosis enhances their susceptibility to being killed by hunting. Consequently, about 30,000 waterfowl hunters and their families, especially children, are at risk from secondary lead ingestion from these poisoned birds. The consumption of a single liver (often eaten in Spain) from any waterfowl shot in this country may result in the direct uptake of 0.01-2.3 mg of lead in 40.4% of cases. This is based on the percentage of 411 analyzed waterfowl having liver lead contents over 0.5 mg kg(-1) wet weight, the maximum lead level in poultry offal that current EU regulations permit. Therefore, health management authorities should draw urgent attention to this environmental problem that presents such an established risk to human health.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".