Hazardous substances in fjords and coastal waters - 2010. Levels, trends and effects. Long-term monitoring of environmental quality in Norwegian coastal waters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Norwegian contribution to OSPAR’s Coordinated Environmental Monitoring Programme (CEMP) in 2010 included the monitoring of micropollutants (contaminants) in blue mussel (40 stations), dogwhelk (8 stations), common periwinkle (1 station), cod (11 stations) and flatfish (dab, flounder, plaice, megrim; 8 stations) along the coast of Norway from the Oslofjord and Hvaler region in the southeast to the Varangerfjord in the northeast. The stations are located both in areas with known or presumed point sources of contaminants, in areas of diffuse load of contamination like city areas, and in more remote areas exposed to presumed low and diffuse pollution. The mussel sites include supplementary stations for the Norwegian Index Programme. The results from 2010 supplied data to a total of 1039 time series of selected contaminants or biomarkers. Of these, 280 showed statistically significant trends of which 248 were downwards and 32 upwards. The dominance of downward trends indicates that contamination is decreasing. In 154 cases, concentrations were above what is expected in only diffusely contaminated areas.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".