MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3204086973 · doi:10.1039/d1em00306b

Insufficient evidence for the existence of natural trifluoroacetic acid

2021· review· en· W3204086973 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Science Processes & Impacts · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPer- and polyfluoroalkyl substances research
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrifluoroacetic acidNatural (archaeology)Mechanism (biology)PollutantNatural organic matterChemistryBiochemical engineeringEnvironmental chemistryEnvironmental scienceChromatographyOrganic chemistryEpistemologyGeologyPhilosophyEngineeringOrganic matter

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) is a persistent and mobile pollutant that is present ubiquitously in the environment. As a result of a few studies reporting its presence in pre-industrial samples and a purported unaccounted source, TFA is often claimed to exist naturally. Here, we examine the evidence for natural TFA by: (i) critically evaluating measurements of TFA in pre-industrial samples; (ii) examining the likelihood of TFA formation by hypothesized mechanisms; (iii) exploring other potential TFA sources to the deep ocean; and (iv) examining global budgets of TFA. We conclude that the presence of TFA in the deep ocean and lack of closed TFA budget is not sufficient evidence that TFA occurs naturally, especially without a reasonable mechanism of formation. We argue the paradigm of natural TFA should no longer be carried forward.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.285 · 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