MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153791273 · doi:10.1029/2000jd900249

Tracing sources of precipitation sulfate in eastern Canada using stable isotopes and trace metals

2000· article· en· W2153791273 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robyn E. Jamieson, Moire A. Wadleigh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGroundwater and Isotope Geochemistry
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Geological Survey
KeywordsSulfateCoveOceanographyGeologyPrecipitationδ34SEnvironmental scienceChemistryGeographyMeteorologyPaleontologyGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stable isotopic and chemical evidence has been used to trace sources of sulfate in precipitation in eastern Canada and to apportion this sulfate between natural and anthropogenic origins. A site in Nepean, Ontario was chosen to characterize continental inputs from long‐range transport, while two coastal sites in Newfoundland (St. John's and Seal Cove) were chosen to represent the boundary between the marine and continental environments. Precipitation sulfate at the coastal sites should reflect mixing of these two source areas, modified by contributions from local anthropogenic sources. The results of this study show that a three end‐member isotopic mixing model using δ 18 O and δ 34 S describes the composition of sulfate at the Newfoundland sites. The three end‐members are (1) sea spray (δ 34 S = +21‰; δ 18 O = +9.5‰), (2) long‐range transported secondary (anthropogenic) sulfate (δ 34 S ∼ +4‰; δ 18 O ∼ 15‰), and (3) local primary (anthropogenic) sulfate (δ 34 S ∼ +4‰; δ 18 O = +42‰). Mass balance calculations show that as much as 63% of the sulfate deposited at the St. John's site and 18% at Seal Cove is primary sulfate emitted from local pollution sources. Up to 30% of the sulfur deposited in rain at the Newfoundland sites is of continental origin.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.313
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 teacher head, 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresSame topicGroundwater and Isotope GeochemistryFrench-language works237,207