MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2980365667 · doi:10.1016/j.dib.2019.104631

Concentration dataset for 4 essential and 5 non-essential elements in fish collected in Arctic and sub-Arctic territories of the Nenets Autonomous and Arkhangelsk regions of Russia

2019· article· en· W2980365667 on OpenAlexaff
Nikita Sobolev, Evert Nieboer, Andrey Aksenov, Tatiana Sorokina, Valery Chashchin, Dag G. Ellingsen, Yulia Varakina, Elena Plakhina, Dmitry Kotsur, A. E. Kosheleva, Yngvar Thomassen

Bibliographic record

VenueData in Brief · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersGovernment Council on Grants, Russian FederationCenter for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale School of Medicine
KeywordsArcticThe arcticIndigenousFish <Actinopterygii>Russian federationGeographyFisheryEnvironmental protectionPhysical geographyEcologyOceanographyBiologyRegional scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The raw concentration data for the research article entitled "Essential and non-essential trace elements in fish consumed by indigenous peoples of the European Russian Arctic" (Sobolev et al., 2019) [1] are herein presented. Fifteen fish species were collected in the Nenets Autonomous and Arkhangelsk Regions of the Russian Federation and were analysed for 9 elements (As, Cd, Co, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb, Se and Zn). The sampling sites were located in the European parts of the Russian Arctic and sub-Arctic territories. Within these territories, Nenets indigenous peoples commonly catch and consume local fish. Based on questionnaire data, local fish sources constituted ∼ 90% of the total fish consumed by endemic individuals living in these regions. The data summarized in this publication fill a gap in knowledge.

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: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.311 · 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
GenreDataset

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

Citations11
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData in Brief→Same topicIndigenous Studies and Ecology→French-language works237,207→