Contaminants in the Arctic and the Antarctic: a comparison of sources, impacts, and remediation options
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contaminants, in freezing ground or elsewhere in the world, are of concern not simply because of their presence but because of their potential for detrimental effects on human health, the biota, or other valued aspects of the environment. Understanding these effects is central to any attempt to manage or remediate contaminated land. The polar regions are different from other parts of the world, and it would be naïve to assume that the mass of information developed in temperate regions can be applied without modification to the polar regions. Despite their obvious environmental similarities, there are important differences between the Arctic and Antarctic. The landmass of the Arctic is much warmer than that of the Antarctic and as a result has a much greater diversity and abundance of flora. Because of its proximity to industrial areas in the Northern Hemisphere, the Arctic also experiences a higher input of contaminants via long-range aerial transport. In addition, the Arctic, with its indigenous population and generally undisputed territorial claims, has long been the subject of resource utilisation, including harvesting of living resources, mineral extraction, and the construction of military infrastructure. The history of human activity in Antarctica is relatively brief, but in this time there has been a series of quite distinct phases, culminating in the Antarctic now holding a unique position in the world. Activities in the Antarctic are governed by the Antarctic Treaty, which contains provisions dealing with environmental matters. The differences between the polar regions and the rest of the world, and between the Arctic and the Antarctic, significantly affect scientific and engineering approaches to the remediation of contamination in polar regions. This paper compares and contrasts the Arctic and Antarctic with respect to geography, configuration, habitation, logistics, environmental guidelines, regulations, and remediation protocols. Chemical contamination is also discussed in terms of its origin and major concerns and interests, particularly with reference to current remediation activities and site-restoration methodology.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".