MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2315422141 · doi:10.1021/es1031135

Increased Mercury Loadings to Western Canadian Alpine Lakes over the Past 150 Years

2011· article· en· W2315422141 on OpenAlexaffabout
Vanessa J. A. Phillips, Vincent L. St. Louis, Colin A. Cooke, Rolf D. Vinebrooke, William O. Hobbs

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Science & Technology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersDirectorate for Biological Sciences
KeywordsMercury (programming language)Environmental scienceWeatheringDeposition (geology)Physical geographyHydrology (agriculture)Organic matterPaleolimnologyClimate changeEnvironmental chemistryGeologySedimentEcologyOceanographyGeographyGeomorphologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We reconstructed historical trends in mercury (Hg) accumulation over the past ∼ 150 years in nine western Canadian alpine lakes. Recent Hg accumulation rates (fluxes) ranged between ∼ 7 and 75 μg m(-2) yr(-1), which were an average of 1.8 times higher than preindustrial (i.e., pre-1850) fluxes. Increased Hg fluxes in these lakes were less than at lower elevation sites, showing that despite the potential for increased deposition, alpine lakes are no more susceptible to Hg accumulation. Unlike other studies, we found that geographic setting, changes in chlorophyll-inferred algal production, and climate were not significant predictors of [Hg] or Hg flux in lakes. Instead, our findings highlight how a combination of atmospheric deposition and site-specific processes, including organic matter supply and catchment weathering, better explain sequestration of Hg in alpine lakes.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations41
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Science & TechnologySame topicMercury impact and mitigation studiesFrench-language works237,207