MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2421453904 · doi:10.5194/acp-16-10735-2016

Chemical cycling and deposition of atmospheric mercury in polar regions:review of recent measurements and comparison with models

2016· article· en· W2421453904 on OpenAlexaff
Hélène Angot, Ashu Dastoor, Francesco De Simone, Katarina Gårdfeldt, Christian N. Gencarelli, Ian M. Hedgecock, Sarka Langer, Olivier Magand, Michelle Nerentorp Mastromonaco, Claus Nordstrøm, Katrine Aspmo Pfaffhuber, Nicola Pirrone, Andrei Ryjkov, Noelle E. Selin, Henrik Skov, Shaojie Song, Francesca Sprovieri, A. Steffen, K. Toyota, Oleg Travnikov, Xin Yang, Aurélien Dommergue

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmospheric chemistry and physics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersSeventh Framework ProgrammeNatural Environment Research CouncilInstitut Polaire Français Paul Emile VictorInstitut Universitaire de FranceSight Research UKAgence Nationale de la RechercheNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCyclingPolarMercury (programming language)Environmental scienceAtmospheric sciencesEnvironmental chemistryAstrobiologyChemistryGeologyPhysicsGeographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Mercury (Hg) is a worldwide contaminant that can cause adverse health effects to wildlife and humans. While atmospheric modeling traces the link from emissions to deposition of Hg onto environmental surfaces, large uncertainties arise from our incomplete understanding of atmospheric processes (oxidation pathways, deposition, and re-emission). Atmospheric Hg reactivity is exacerbated in high latitudes and there is still much to be learned from polar regions in terms of atmospheric processes. This paper provides a synthesis of the atmospheric Hg monitoring data available in recent years (2011–2015) in the Arctic and in Antarctica along with a comparison of these observations with numerical simulations using four cutting-edge global models. The cycle of atmospheric Hg in the Arctic and in Antarctica presents both similarities and differences. Coastal sites in the two regions are both influenced by springtime atmospheric Hg depletion events and by summertime snowpack re-emission and oceanic evasion of Hg. The cycle of atmospheric Hg differs between the two regions primarily because of their different geography. While Arctic sites are significantly influenced by northern hemispheric Hg emissions especially in winter, coastal Antarctic sites are significantly influenced by the reactivity observed on the East Antarctic ice sheet due to katabatic winds. Based on the comparison of multi-model simulations with observations, this paper discusses whether the processes that affect atmospheric Hg seasonality and interannual variability are appropriately represented in the models and identifies research gaps in our understanding of the atmospheric Hg cycling in high latitudes.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations98
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtmospheric chemistry and physicsSame topicMercury impact and mitigation studiesFrench-language works237,207