In search of potential source regions of semi-volatile organic contaminants in air in the Yukon Territory, Canada from 2007 to 2009 using hybrid receptor models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Environmental context Some long-lived organic contaminants, such as chlorinated organics, brominated flame retardants and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, can undergo transport through the atmosphere to remote regions. A series of measurements of these compounds taken over almost 3 years in the air at a remote location was combined with meteorological data to try to reveal potential source areas. After adjusting several parameters to optimise the method’s ability to identify sources it was found that for most contaminants no definitive sources are revealed. Abstract A suite of brominated flame retardants, chlorinated organic pesticides and some metabolites thereof were analysed in week-long and day-long air samples collected at Little Fox Lake in Canada’s Yukon Territory from 2007 to 2009. Several trajectory-based methods for source region identification were applied to this dataset, as well as to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) concentrations in those same samples reported previously. A type of concentration weighted trajectory (CWT) analysis, using a modified grid to avoid difficulties near the Earth’s poles, and removing trajectory endpoints at altitudes greater than 700 m did not identify distinct source regions for most analytes. Decreasing the spatial resolution of the grid made interpretation simpler but reinforced patterns that may have stemmed from single trajectories. The potential source contribution function (PSCF) is similar to CWT but treats the concentration data categorically, rather than numerically. PSCF provides more distinct results, highlighting the Arctic Ocean as a potential source of para,para'-dichlorodiphenyldichloroethene and both northern Siberia and Canada’s Yukon and Northwest Territories as potential sources of PAHs. To simulate the uncertainty associated with individual trajectories, a set of trajectories was also generated for six points surrounding the sampling station and included in the trajectory analyses. This had the effect of smoothing the CWT and PSCF values for those analytes with no clearly definable sources, and highlighting the source regions for the two that did. For the bulk of the analytes discussed here, Little Fox Lake is well positioned to act as a background monitoring site.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".