MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093676946 · doi:10.1144/1467-787302-027

Impact of toxic metals and metalloids from the Caribou gold-mining areas in Nova Scotia, Canada

2002· article· en· W2093676946 on OpenAlexaffabout
Henry K. Wong, Anthony Gauthier, S. Beauchamp, R. Tordon

Bibliographic record

VenueGeochemistry Exploration Environment Analysis · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHeavy metals in environment
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNova scotiaMetalloidGold miningEnvironmental scienceHeavy metalsEnvironmental protectionEnvironmental chemistryGeographyArchaeologyMetallurgyChemistryMetalMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Caribou gold-mining areas in Nova Scotia, Canada were in full production from 1869 to 1927. Abandoned waste rocks and fine-grained tailings from Hg-amalgamation processes have weathered into Long Lake, part of the Moose River system. Metal burdens in tailings and lake sediments, as well as the biological community structure above and below the processing site, were investigated. Surface tailings were found to contain (in μ g g −1 ): As (5000–28 000), Cd (0.1–0.6), Cu (6–37), Mn (50–600), Ni (600–2000), Hg (0.3–0.7), Pb (70–120), Tl (0.03–0.06), V (3–10) and Zn (20–100). Lake sediments below the tailing field were found to be highly enriched with As, Ni, Pb and, to a lesser extent, Hg, Cu and Mn. Air–surface exchange from tailings (preliminary results, 48 h cycle) exhibit Hg-flux rates from 20 to >100 times greater than those of natural soils in Nova Scotia. Stream water and sediments below the mine were toxic to the benthic community.

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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations15
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeochemistry Exploration Environment AnalysisSame topicHeavy metals in environmentFrench-language works237,207