MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064688259 · doi:10.1080/0265203031000119034

Survey of total mercury in total diet food composites and an estimation of the dietary intake of mercury by adults and children from two Canadian cities, 1998-2000

2003· article· en· W2064688259 on OpenAlexaffabout
Robert Dabeka, Arthur D Mckenzie, Peter Bradley

Bibliographic record

VenueFood Additives & Contaminants · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
FundersNational Institute of Standards and Technology
KeywordsMercury (programming language)Animal scienceTolerable daily intakeToxicologyMedicineBody weightChemistryBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Total mercury was measured in 259 total diet food composites from two Canadian cities. Levels were generally low, with 46% of the composites having concentrations below the limit of detection, which ranged from 0.026 to 0.506 ng g(-1). The fish category contained the highest mercury concentrations, which averaged 67 ng g(-1) and ranged from 24 to 148 ng g(-1). All composites were below the Canadian guideline for total mercury in fish of 0.5 ppm. Dietary intakes of mercury averaged 0.022 microg kg(-1) body weight/day (microg kg(-1) day(-1)), and ranged from 0.012 microg kg(-1) day(-1) for females over 65 years old to 0.062 microg kg(-1) day(-1) for 0-1-month-old infants. For fish consumers, fish contributed to more than half of the ingested mercury. All intakes were well below Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives Provisional Tolerable Weekly Intakes, expressed on a daily basis, of 0.71 microg kg(-1) day(-1) total mercury and 0.47 microg kg(-1) day(-1) methyl mercury, and also below a recent Health Canada recommended maximum methyl mercury intake of 0.2 microg kg(-1) day(-1) for children and women of child-bearing age.

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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations43
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFood Additives & ContaminantsSame topicMercury impact and mitigation studiesFrench-language works237,207