Sampling for mercury at subnanogram per litre concentrations for load estimation in rivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimation of constituent loads in streams requires collection of stream samples that are representative of constituent concentrations, that is, composites of isokinetic multiple verticals collected along a stream transect. An all-Teflon isokinetic sampler (DH-81) cleaned in 75°C, 4 N HCl was tested using blank, split, and replicate samples to assess systematic and random sample contamination by mercury species. Mean mercury concentrations in field-equipment blanks were low: 0.135 ng·L-1 for total mercury (ΣHg) and 0.0086 ng·L-1 for monomethyl mercury (MeHg). Mean square errors (MSE) for ΣHg and MeHg duplicate samples collected at eight sampling stations were not statistically different from MSE of samples split in the laboratory, which represent the analytical and splitting error. Low field-blank concentrations and statistically equal duplicate- and split-sample MSE values indicate that no measurable contamination was occurring during sampling. Standard deviations associated with example mercury load estimations were four to five times larger, on a relative basis, than standard deviations calculated from duplicate samples, indicating that error of the load determination was primarily a function of the loading model used, not of sampling or analytical methods.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".