MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2465707090 · doi:10.14351/0831-4985-30.1.7

Arsenic and pre-1970s museum specimens: Using a hand-held XRF analyzer to determine the prevalence of arsenic at Naturalis Biodiversity Center

2016· article· en· W2465707090 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rebecca B. Desjardins

Bibliographic record

VenueCollection Forum · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Heritage Materials Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArsenicMercury (programming language)ContaminationEnvironmental scienceBiodiversityArsenic contamination of groundwaterEnvironmental chemistryBiologyChemistryComputer scienceMaterials scienceMetallurgyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The use of arsenic in the preservation of biological specimens was common practice prior to 1970. Because the Naturalis Center for Biodiversity (Naturalis) has extensive collections from before 1950, it was suspected that it held many contaminated specimens. In 2013, Naturalis tested 220 objects for the presence of arsenic over a period of 2 days using a handheld x-ray fluorescence analyzer, which detects arsenic, lead, mercury, and some other metals on objects. This testing provides an estimate of the prevalence of contaminated specimens, as well as a way to determine whether arsenic had spread into noncollection areas. In addition to specimens, floors, desks, keyboards, gloves, elevators, and lab coats were tested for arsenic presence and quantity. The results indicate that mounted specimens do not spread large amounts of arsenic onto the surrounding areas. However, there was sufficient contamination to warrant concern such that the arsenic-handling policy was modified to include different categories of contamination. From this framework, policy and physical changes to the building were made to minimize exposure by collections staff and visitors.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCollection ForumSame topicCultural Heritage Materials AnalysisFrench-language works237,207