Potential sources and processes affecting speciated atmospheric mercury at Kejimkujik National Park, Canada: comparison of receptor models and data treatment methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Source apportionment analysis was conducted with positive matrix factorization (PMF) and principal component analysis (PCA) methods using concentrations of speciated mercury (Hg), i.e., gaseous elemental mercury (GEM), gaseous oxidized mercury (GOM), and particulate-bound mercury (PBM), and other air pollutants collected at Kejimkujik National Park, Nova Scotia, Canada, in 2009 and 2010. The results were largely consistent between the 2 years for both methods. The same four source factors were identified in each year using PMF method. In both years, factor photochemistry and re-emission had the largest contributions to atmospheric Hg, while the contributions of combustion emission and industrial sulfur varied slightly between the 2 years. Four components were extracted with air pollutants only in each year using PCA method. Consistencies between the results of PMF and PCA include (1) most or all PMF factors overlapped with PCA components, (2) both methods suggest strong impact of photochemistry but little association between ambient Hg and sea salt, and (3) shifting of PMF source profiles and source contributions from one year to another was echoed in PCA. Inclusion of meteorological parameters led to identification of an additional component, Hg wet deposition in PCA, while it did not affect the identification of other components. The PMF model performance was comparable in 2009 and 2010. Among the three Hg forms, the agreements between model-reproduced and observed annual mean concentrations were excellent for GEM, very good for PBM, and acceptable for GOM. However, on a daily basis, the agreement was very good for GEM but poor for GOM and PBM. Sensitivity tests suggest that increasing sample size by imputation is not effective in improving model performance, while reducing the fraction of concentrations below method detection limit, by either scaling GOM and PBM to higher concentrations or combining them to reactive mercury, is effective. Most of the data treatment options considered had little impact on the source identification or contribution.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".