MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997746741 · doi:10.1039/c9em00498j

Multi-element (C, H, Cl, Br) stable isotope fractionation as a tool to investigate transformation processes for halogenated hydrocarbons

2019· article· en· W2997746741 on OpenAlexafffund
Ann Ojeda, Elizabeth Phillips, Barbara Sherwood Lollar

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Science Processes & Impacts · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear Physics and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto Public Health
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFractionationTransformation (genetics)Environmental chemistryStable isotope ratioChemistryIsotopeOrganic chemistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Compound-specific isotope analysis (CSIA) is a powerful tool to evaluate transformation processes of halogenated compounds. Many halogenated hydrocarbons allow for multiple stable isotopic systems (C, H, Cl, Br) to be measured for a single compound. This has led to a large body of literature describing abiotic and biotic transformation pathways and reaction mechanisms for contaminants such as chlorinated alkenes and alkanes as well as brominated hydrocarbons. Here, the current literature is reviewed and a new compilation of Λ values for multi-isotopic systems for halogenated hydrocarbons is presented. Case studies of each compound class are discussed and thereby the current strengths of multi-element isotope analysis, continuing challenges, and gaps in our current knowledge are identified for practitioners of multi-element CSIA to address in the near future.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations41
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Science Processes & ImpactsSame topicNuclear Physics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207