MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068352917 · doi:10.1029/2003gl017308

The fate of mercury species in a sub‐arctic snowpack during snowmelt

2003· article· en· W2068352917 on OpenAlexaffabout
Aurélien Dommergue, Christophe Ferrari, Pierre‐Alexis Gauchard, Claude F. Boutron, Laurier Poissant, Martin Pilote, Petru Jitaru, F. Adams

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique
KeywordsSnowpackMeltwaterSnowmeltSnowMercury (programming language)MethylmercuryArcticEnvironmental scienceAtmospheric sciencesEnvironmental chemistryOceanographyGeologyChemistryBioaccumulationGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An extensive mercury study was conducted in April 2002 prior to and during the annual melting of a snowpack in a sub‐arctic site along the Hudson Bay (Canada). Gas‐phase measurements show that the snowmelt coincides with an elemental mercury (Hg°) pulse in the snowpack air far above ambient levels. Additional measurements of inorganic mercury (Hg 2+ ) and methylmercury (MeHg + ) in snow pits, in surface snow and in a meltwater sample clearly reveal that most of Hg is removed from the snow during the first days of snowmelt. We estimate that gas‐phase exchanges contribute poorly to remove Hg from the snowpack; consequently during a snowmelt day more than 90% of Hg present in the snow surface is likely released with the meltwater. In arctic areas, where Hg accumulates at an accelerated rate in the snow surfaces [ Lu et al. , 2001 ] during mercury depletion events (MDE), the discharge of this toxic and bio‐accumulating pollutant in water systems could be a threat to ecosystems and local indigenous populations.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.847
Threshold uncertainty score0.788

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations129
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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