Comparison of Atmospheric Travel Distances of Several PAHs Calculated by Two Fate and Transport Models (The Tool and ELPOS) with Experimental Values Derived from a Peat Bog Transect
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multimedia fate and transport models are used to evaluate the long range transport potential (LRTP) of organic pollutants, often by calculating their characteristic travel distance (CTD). We calculated the CTD of several polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and metals using two models: the OECD POV& LRTP Screening Tool (The Tool), and ELPOS. The absolute CTDs of PAHs estimated with the two models agree reasonably well for predominantly particle-bound congeners, while discrepancies are observed for more volatile congeners. We test the performance of the models by comparing the relative ranking of CTDs with the one of experimentally determined travel distances (ETDs). ETDs were estimated from historical deposition rates of pollutants to peat bogs in Eastern Canada. CTDs and ETDs of PAHs indicate a low LRTP. To eliminate the high influence on specific model assumptions and to emphasize the difference between the travel distances of single PAHs, ETDs and CTDs were analyzed relative to the travel distances of particle-bound compounds. The ETDs determined for PAHs, Cu, and Zn ranged from 173 to 321 km with relative uncertainties between 26% and 46%. The ETDs of two metals were shorter than those of the PAHs. For particle-bound PAHs the relative ETDs and CTDs were similar, while they differed for Chrysene.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it