MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3170802897 · doi:10.1073/pnas.2100023118

Anthropogenic lead pervasive in Canadian Arctic seawater

2021· article· en· W3170802897 on OpenAlexaffabout
Joan De Vera, Priyanka Chandan, Paulina Pinedo‐González, Seth G. John, Sarah Jackson, Jay T. Cullen, Manuel Colombo, Kristin J. Orians, Bridget A. Bergquist

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeawaterArcticOceanographyEnvironmental sciencePermafrostLead (geology)Environmental chemistryParticulatesPollutionGeologyChemistryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

). The 20th century Eurasian Pb is present predominantly in the upper 1,000 m near the shelf but is also detected in older deep water (2,000 to 2,500 m). These findings highlight the importance of the remobilization of anthropogenic Pb associated with previously deposited aerosols, especially those that were emitted during the peak of Pb emissions in the 20th century. This remobilization might be further enhanced because of accelerated melting of permafrost and ice along with increased coastal erosion in the Arctic. Additionally, the detection of 20th century Eurasian Pb in deep water helps constrain ventilation ages. Overall, this study shows that Pb isotopes in Arctic seawater are useful as a gauge of changing particulate and contaminant sources, such as those resulting from increased remobilization (e.g., coastal erosion) and potentially also those associated with increased human activities (e.g., mining and shipping).

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.265 · 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
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

Citations15
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences→Same topicMercury impact and mitigation studies→French-language works237,207→