MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2768491592 · doi:10.1007/s13280-017-0995-6

Vulnerability of Canadian aquatic ecosystems to nuclear accidents

2017· article· en· W2768491592 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Lars Brinkmann, David J. Rowan

Bibliographic record

VenueAMBIO · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRadioactive contamination and transfer
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nuclear Laboratories
FundersAboriginal Affairs and Northern Development CanadaGovernment of CanadaAustralian GovernmentMinistry of EnvironmentParks CanadaAlberta Environment and Parks
KeywordsBioaccumulationStrontiumEnvironmental scienceTrophic levelRadiological weaponEcosystemRisk assessmentAquatic ecosystemBiotaCaesiumEcologyEnvironmental chemistryRisk analysis (engineering)BiologyChemistryComputer scienceRadiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sr), but have not been used to make predictions of radiological risk from nuclear accidents under variable environmental conditions on broad geographical scales. In this paper, we first present models for predicting the bioaccumulation of cesium and strontium by aquatic biota based on ambient concentrations of dissolved potassium and calcium, respectively, and then test these models using independent data from aquatic ecosystems at Canadian nuclear sites. Secondly, models yielding the best predictions across a wide range of input parameters were selected to estimate bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) for cesium and strontium in aquatic ecosystems across Canada, using trophic level of organisms and dissolved potassium for cesium and calcium concentrations for strontium as predictor variables, and presented as contour maps of radiological risk. The models show that risk from bioaccumulation of cesium and strontium can vary by several orders of magnitude depending on site-specific environmental conditions and trophic ecology. Overall, our results suggest that single-parameter approaches taken by regulatory standards may either over- or under-predict radiological risk at many locations, and are thus not readily suitable to inform siting decisions for new nuclear developments.

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)0.002
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.172

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAMBIOSame topicRadioactive contamination and transferFrench-language works237,207