MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127412600 · doi:10.1002/etc.5620190607

Teeth as biomonitors of soft tissue mercury concentrations in beluga, <i>Delphinapterus leucas</i>

2000· article· en· W2127412600 on OpenAlexaff
P.M. Outridge, Rudolph Wagemann, R McNeely

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Toxicology and Chemistry · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBelugaBeluga WhaleLeucasMercury (programming language)CementumMolarChemistryWet weightLiver tissueEnvironmental chemistryBiologyDentistryDentinEndocrinologyFisheryEcologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper reports relationships between bulk Hg concentrations in the tooth cementum and soft tssues of fee-living beluga (Delphinapterus leucas). Total Hg levels were determined in slivers of cementum using a solid-sample Hg analyzer, a recent advance in Hg analysis that avoids acid predigestion. Tooth Hg concentrations ranged up to about 350 ng/g dry weight and were significantly correlated with Hg levels in kidneys, liver, muscle, and muktuk (skin) and with the age of the animals. The Hg/Se ratio in liver, the organ with the highest Hg concentrations, may have been an important determinant of tooth Hg. At hepatic Hg/Se molar ratios ≥0.6, tooth Hg increased steeply, suggesting that Hg in teeth may reflect physiologically available Hg that was not bound in the liver and that was circulating in the bloodstream. This Hg/Se ratio was exceeded in most beluga aged ≥20 years. The results indicate that teeth can be used as biomonitors to reconstruct temporal and geographic trends in the soft tissue Hg concentrations of beluga, provided that the age structures of the different populations are known.

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)0.000
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 score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations26
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Toxicology and ChemistrySame topicMercury impact and mitigation studiesFrench-language works237,207