MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115963474 · doi:10.1039/c2em10735j

A comparison of data quality control protocols for atmospheric mercury speciation measurements

2012· article· en· W2115963474 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Monitoring · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMercury (programming language)ComparabilityQuality assuranceEnvironmental scienceData qualityComputer scienceEnvironmental chemistryChemistryMathematicsEngineeringExternal quality assessment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Significant advances in the measurement of atmospheric mercury species have been made in the past 10 years yet limited protocols on quality control (QC) and assurance on this data have been published in the literature. Recently, considerable work has been done to develop quality control and assurance programs within North America. Environment Canada and the National Atmospheric Deposition Network (NADP) independently developed programs, RDMQ™ and AMQC, respectively, to QC atmospheric mercury speciation data (including gaseous elemental mercury (GEM), reactive gaseous mercury (RGM) and mercury associated to particles (PHg)). These 2 programs were assessed by the criteria on which the data is QCed and comparability of the final data products. Results show that the criteria used to flag data compare well within the 4 tested sites and that the number of flags for each criterion is generally comparable. The QC programs were applied to 2 distinct data sets and the final QCed data was compared. From a mid-latitude site, the final data sets compare very well and showed there to be a 0.3, 8.6 and 15% difference in the mean GEM, RGM and PHg concentrations post QC of each program. It is recommended that either the RDMQ or the AMQC programs be employed for a typical mid-latitude site. When the QC programs were applied to highly variable data, the data do not compare as well for RGM and PHg. Results showed a 2.7, 27 and 33% difference in the mean GEM, RGM and PHg concentrations, respectively, post QC of each program. It is recommended that RDMQ be used for data that is highly variable with high RGM/PHg concentrations as it allows for more manual correction over the QCed data. This investigation of 2 QC programs produced comparable data and that either of these programs can be used as standard methods for the quality control of atmospheric mercury speciation data.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.447

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.243
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.195 · 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