MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128166757 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-57-5-1053

Mercury in the Sudbury River (Massachusetts, U.S.A.): pollution history and a synthesis of recent research

2000· article· en· W2128166757 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
James G. Wiener, Pamela J. Shields

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMercury (programming language)WetlandEnvironmental chemistryEnvironmental scienceBiotaPollutionSink (geography)Food chainHydrology (agriculture)ChemistryEcologyGeologyBiologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We review the transport, fate, and bioavailability of mercury in the Sudbury River, topics addressed in the following five papers. Mercury entered the river from an industrial complex (site) that operated from 1917 to 1978. Rates of mercury accumulation in sediment cores from two reservoirs just downstream from the site decreased soon after industrial operations ended and have decreased further since capping of contaminated soils at the site in 1991. The reservoirs contained the most contaminated sediments (some exceeding 50 μg Hg·g dry weight-1) and were depositional sinks for total mercury. Methyl mercury concentrations in biota did not parallel concentrations of total mercury in the sediments to which organisms were exposed, experimentally or as residents. Contaminated wetlands within the floodplain about 25 km downstream from the site produced and exported methyl mercury from inorganic mercury that had originated from the site. Natural burial processes have gradually decreased the quantity of sedimentary mercury available for methylation within the reservoirs, whereas mercury in the lesser contaminated wetlands farther downstream has remained more available for transport, methylation, and entry into food webs.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations30
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicMercury impact and mitigation studiesFrench-language works237,207