MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2327766428 · doi:10.1021/es300576p

Methylmercury Cycling in High Arctic Wetland Ponds: Sources and Sinks

2012· article· en· W2327766428 on OpenAlexaffabout
Igor Lehnherr, Vincent L. St. Louis, Craig A. Emmerton, Joel Barker, Jane L. Kirk

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Science & Technology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMethylmercuryArcticWetlandMercury (programming language)Sink (geography)Environmental scienceEnvironmental chemistryTemperate climateCyclingDeposition (geology)EcologyOceanographyChemistryBiologyBioaccumulationGeographyGeologySediment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The sources of methylmercury (MeHg; the toxic form of mercury that is biomagnified through foodwebs) to Arctic freshwater organisms have not been clearly identified. We used a mass balance approach to quantify MeHg production in two wetland ponds in the Lake Hazen region of northern Ellesmere Island, NU, in the Canadian High Arctic and to evaluate the importance of these systems as sources of MeHg to Arctic foodwebs. We show that internal production (1.8-40 ng MeHg m(-2) d(-1)) is a much larger source of MeHg than external inputs from direct atmospheric deposition (0.029-0.051 ng MeHg m(-2) d(-1)), as expected. Furthermore, MeHg cycling in these systems is dominated by Hg(II) methylation and MeHg photodemethylation (2.0-33 ng MeHg m(-2) d(-1)), which is a sink for a large proportion of the MeHg produced by Hg(II) methylation in these ponds. We also show that MeHg production in the two study ponds is comparable to what has previously been measured in numerous more southerly systems known to be important MeHg sources, such as temperate wetlands and lakes, demonstrating that wetland ponds in the High Arctic are important sources of MeHg to local aquatic foodwebs.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.229 · 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.

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

Citations55
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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