MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2328379691 · doi:10.1021/es500128f

A Fluvial Mercury Budget for Lake Ontario

2014· article· en· W2328379691 on OpenAlexaffabout
Joseph S. Denkenberger, Charles T. Driscoll, Edward F. Mason, Brian A. Branfireun, Ashley Warnock

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Science & Technology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFluvialMercury (programming language)Hydrology (agriculture)Environmental scienceParticulatesSink (geography)WetlandWatershedFlux (metallurgy)SedimentDeposition (geology)STREAMSGeologyGeomorphologyEcologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Watershed mercury (Hg) flux was calculated for ten inflowing rivers and the outlet for Lake Ontario using empirical measurements from two independent field-sampling programs. Total Hg (THg) flux for nine study watersheds that directly drain into the lake ranged from 0.2 kg/yr to 13 kg/yr, with the dominant fluvial THg load from the Niagara River at 154 kg/yr. THg loss at the outlet (St. Lawrence River) was 68 kg/yr and has declined approximately 40% over the past decade. Fluvial Hg inputs largely (62%) occur in the dissolved fraction and are similar to estimates of atmospheric Hg inputs. Fluvial mass balances suggest strong in-lake retention of particulate Hg inputs (99%), compared to dissolved total Hg (45%) and methyl Hg (22%) fractions. Wetland land cover is a good predictor of methyl Hg yield for Lake Ontario watersheds. Sediment deposition studies, coupled atmospheric and fluvial Hg fluxes, and a comparison of this work with previous measurements indicate that Lake Ontario is a net sink of Hg inputs and not at steady state likely because of recent decreases in point source inputs and atmospheric Hg deposition.

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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations9
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Science & Technology→Same topicMercury impact and mitigation studies→French-language works237,207→