Distribution of dioxins and furans in size-fractionated suspended solids in Canagagigue Creek, Elmira, Ontario.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A study was conducted to examine the occurrence and concentration of dioxins and furans in separated size fractions of suspended sediment collected in Canagagigue Creek near Elmira, Ontario. Field-based water elutriation systems were used to collect a time-integrated sample of suspended solids from the creek during a spring storm event. The elutriation system hydraulically sorts suspended solids into five predetermined grain-size classes ( 63 μm). Dioxin and furan compounds were detected in suspended sediment fractions at levels below the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Energy (OMEE) Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines. Average concentrations of the most toxic compounds, 2,3,7,8 T 4 CDD and 2,3,7,8 T 4 CDF, were 20 ppt and 22 ppt, respectively. The data show no trend between grain size and pollutant concentration. Concentrations of dioxins and furans in suspended sediments are consistent with contaminant levels observed in river-bottom and downstream flood-plain sediments. Independent studies show that elevated levels of dioxins and furans in creek sediments accumulate in the tissues of aquatic organisms and may biomagnify through the food chain.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".