Mercury concentrations in store‐bought shrimp
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Most mercury exposure to humans comes from consumption of fish and shellfish; however, mercury concentrations are not known for all available seafood, particularly shrimp. Our objective was to estimate the concentration of mercury in a variety of store‐bought shrimp and then to compare total mercury concentrations to other information such as brand, harvest type, and total fat. We sampled a total of n = 159 shrimp from 10 different brands. Across 10 brands of shrimp, there was a significant effect of brand, with mean mercury concentrations among brands varying by up to an order of magnitude. We found no significant differences comparing shrimp between two capture types (wild‐caught and farm‐raised), which was perfectly collinear to whether shrimp were domestic or foreign. We did detect significant differences in mercury levels among different amounts of total fat in shrimp, with the lowest fat shrimp (1 g) having significantly more mercury than the highest fat shrimp (2 g). Although our results confirm that shrimp contains relatively low levels of mercury and is generally considered a good choice for consumers, this study is the first to report significant differences in mercury among both brands of shrimp and total fat content in shrimp.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".