MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4244321936 · doi:10.24124/2012/bpgub939

Development of a risk assessment tool for mercury in fish.

2012· dissertation· en· W4244321936 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Reena Pahal

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Marine Fisheries ServiceAgency for Toxic Substances and Disease RegistryU.S. Department of AgricultureHealth CanadaWorld Health OrganizationU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
KeywordsMercury (programming language)Christian ministryFish <Actinopterygii>Risk assessmentEnvironmental scienceFisheryHealth riskFish consumptionGeographyToxicologyEnvironmental protectionEnvironmental healthBiologyMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fish can accumulate high levels of mercury (Hg) and become a human health concern if consumed. The purpose of this study was to develop a risk assessment tool to determine which water bodies from certain areas in Northern British Columbia contain fish with high Hg concentrations. Raw and published data were collected from Health Canada and Ministry of Environment and amalgamated to form a large data set (3097 fish samples from 34 distinct areas between 1974 and 2000). Fish weight was standardized and a cut-off point was determined for each species for high Hg levels. This was used to develop a risk assessment tool unique to the study area to identify which species/water body combinations were high in Hg and how fish consumption strategies can be adapted to minimize exposure. Although high Hg levels were widespread, the majority of contaminated samples were form Pinchi Lake and the Williston Lake area. --Leaf ii.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMercury impact and mitigation studies→French-language works237,207→