MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133820063 · doi:10.1657/1938-4246-43.2.289

Bryophytes as Heavy Metal Biomonitors in the Canadian High Arctic

2011· article· en· W2133820063 on OpenAlexaffabout
David Wilkie, Catherine La Farge

Bibliographic record

VenueArctic Antarctic and Alpine Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLichen and fungal ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of Notre Dame
KeywordsTundraMossArcticBiomonitoringEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental chemistryLichenEcologyPermafrostPhysical geographyChemistryGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mosses are a major component of the tundra flora in the Canadian Arctic, yet their use in arctic contaminant research is lacking. Biomonitoring of atmospheric heavy metal deposition using mosses has been extensively employed in Europe, providing a higher sampling density than precipitation monitoring. Temporal, spatial, and habitat gradients of concentrations and enrichment factors of As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Zn, and Pb (and its stable isotopes) in mosses from Ellesmere Island are examined. Anthropogenically influenced concentrations of As, Cr, Cu, Ni, and Zn in samples collected in 2007 were observed. Concentrations of heavy metals in hydric taxa were larger than those observed in xeric or mesic taxa, though non-significant. Generally, heavy metal concentrations decreased from 1983 to 2007 in a single high arctic locality, though non-significant. Pb-isotope ratios were radiogenic and characteristic of the High Arctic Islands. Trends in high arctic moss data corresponded with environmental proxies such as glacial ice cores, lake sediments, and atmospheric aerosols illustrating the usefulness of bryophytes as biomonitors. This paper outlines the utility of using mosses as biomonitors of heavy metal depositions in the Canadian High Arctic.

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 score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.221 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArctic Antarctic and Alpine ResearchSame topicLichen and fungal ecologyFrench-language works237,207