Uncertainty Assessment of Gaseous Oxidized Mercury Measurements Collected by Atmospheric Mercury Network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gaseous oxidized mercury (GOM) measurement uncertainties undoubtedly impact the understanding of mercury biogeochemical cycling; however, there is a lack of consensus on the uncertainty magnitude. The numerical method presented in this study provides an alternative means of estimating the uncertainties of previous GOM measurements. Weekly GOM in ambient air was predicted from measured weekly mercury wet deposition using a scavenging ratio approach, and compared against field measurements of 2-4 hly GOM to estimate the measurement biases of the Tekran speciation instruments at 13 Atmospheric Mercury Network (AMNet) sites. Multiyear average GOM measurements were estimated to be biased low by more than a factor of 2 at six sites, between a factor of 1.5 and 1.8 at six other sites, and below a factor of 1.3 at one site. The differences between predicted and observed were significantly larger during summer than other seasons potentially because of higher ozone concentrations that may interfere with GOM sampling. The analysis data collected over six years at multiple sites suggests a systematic bias in GOM measurements, supporting the need for further investigation of measurement technologies and identifying the chemical composition of GOM.
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 | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".