Sources of exposure to lead in Arctic and subarctic regions: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding lead exposure pathways is a priority because of its ubiquitous presence in the environment as well as the potential health risks. We aimed to identify potential lead sources and pathways of lead exposure, including long-range transport, and the magnitude of exposure in Arctic and subarctic communities. A scoping review strategy and screening approach was used to search literature from January 2000 to December 2020. A total of 228 academic and grey literature references were synthesised. The majority of these studies (54%) were from Canada. Indigenous people in Arctic and subarctic communities in Canada had higher levels of lead than the rest of Canada. The majority of studies in all Arctic countries reported at least some individuals above the level of concern. Lead levels were influenced by a number of factors including using lead ammunition to harvest traditional food and living in close proximity to mines. Lead levels in water, soil, and sediment were generally low. Literature showed the possibility of long-range transport via migratory birds. Household lead sources included lead-based paint, dust, or tap water. This literature review will help to inform management strategies for communities, researchers, and governments, with the aim of decreasing lead exposure in northern regions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".