MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118928976 · doi:10.1002/etc.3125

Pharmaceuticals and other anthropogenic tracers in surface water: A randomized survey of 50 Minnesota lakes

2015· article· en· W2118928976 on OpenAlexaff
Mark L. Ferrey, Steven A. Heiskary, Richard Grace, M. Coreen Hamilton, April Lueck

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Toxicology and Chemistry · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental Impacts
Canadian institutionsAXYS Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental chemistryEndocrine disruptorChemistryEndocrine systemHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Water from 50 randomly selected lakes across Minnesota, USA, was analyzed for pharmaceuticals, personal care products, hormones, and other commercial or industrial chemicals in conjunction with the US Environmental Protection Agency's 2012 National Lakes Assessment. Thirty-eight of the 125 chemicals analyzed were detected at least once, all at parts per trillion concentrations. The most widely detected was N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide, present in 48% of the lakes sampled. Amitriptyline, a widely used antidepressant, was found in 28% of the lakes. The endocrine active chemicals bisphenol A, androstenedione, and nonylphenol were found in 42%, 30%, and 10% of the lakes, respectively. Cocaine was found in 32% of the lakes, and its degradation product, benzoylecgonine, was detected at 28% of the locations. Carbadox, an antibiotic used solely in the production of swine, was also present in 28% of the lakes sampled. The means by which these and other chemicals were transported to several of the remote lakes is unclear but may involve atmospheric transport.

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 score0.164
Threshold uncertainty score0.326

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations49
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Toxicology and ChemistrySame topicPharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental ImpactsFrench-language works237,207