MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2913824621 · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-36582-y

Spatial heterogeneity of heavy metal contamination in soils and plants in Hefei, China

2019· article· en· W2913824621 on OpenAlexaff
Qianjin Zhang, Ruoyun Yu, Songling Fu, Wu ZeMin, Han Y. H. Chen, Hua Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHeavy metals in environment
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContaminationSoil waterChinaEnvironmental scienceHeavy metalsEnvironmental chemistryEnvironmental protectionMining engineeringGeographySoil scienceGeologyBiologyEcologyChemistryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The contamination of soil and plants with heavy metals, which has detrimental influences on plant growth, water purification, and food safety, has emerged as a serious global issue. To better understand the spatial variations of contamination of heavy metals associated city development and land use types, we collected soil samples and Magnolia grandiflora branches to quantify lead (Pb) and cadmium (Cd) contents of the roadside, industrial, residential, and park greenbelts in Hefei City, China. We found that Pb content in soil was the highest in roadside greenbelts and the lowest in parks with industrial and residential greenbelts being intermediate, while Cd in soil was the highest in greenbelts close to city center and decreased with the distance to city center. Pb in M. grandiflora, however, did not differ among greenbelt types but decreased with distance to the city center. Cd in M. grandiflora was the highest in roadside and lowest in parks and also decreased with the distance to the city center. Across all greenbelt types and the distances to the city center, Pb and Cd contents were positively correlated in soil and plants. Our findings suggest that vehicle traffic, population density, and age of urbanization collectively contribute to soil and plant contamination of Pb and Cd.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.600

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations59
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicHeavy metals in environmentFrench-language works237,207