MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3155982606 · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-23391-7

Global health effects of future atmospheric mercury emissions

2021· article· en· W3155982606 on OpenAlexaff
Yanxu Zhang, Zhengcheng Song, Shaojian Huang, Peng Zhang, Yiming Peng, Peipei Wu, Jing Gu, Stephanie Dutkiewicz, Huanxin Zhang, Shiliang Wu, Fei Wang, Long Chen, Shuxiao Wang, Ping Li

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNanjing UniversityGovernment of Jiangsu ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMercury (programming language)Environmental scienceHuman healthConventionEnvironmental protectionGlobal healthNatural resource economicsEnvironmental healthPublic healthMedicinePolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that poses health risks to the global population. Anthropogenic mercury emissions to the atmosphere are projected to decrease in the future due to enhanced policy efforts such as the Minamata Convention, a legally-binding international treaty entered into force in 2017. Here, we report the development of a comprehensive climate-atmosphere-land-ocean-ecosystem and exposure-risk model framework for mercury and its application to project the health effects of future atmospheric emissions. Our results show that the accumulated health effects associated with mercury exposure during 2010-2050 are $19 (95% confidence interval: 4.7-54) trillion (2020 USD) realized to 2050 (3% discount rate) for the current policy scenario. Our results suggest a substantial increase in global human health cost if emission reduction actions are delayed. This comprehensive modeling approach provides a much-needed tool to help parties to evaluate the effectiveness of Hg emission controls as required by the Minamata Convention.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.814
Threshold uncertainty score0.358

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.342 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations201
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207