MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394334709 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.19950896

FIDMAC Standardized Yellow Perch Mercury Dataset for Canada

2022· dataset· en· W4394334709 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David C. Depew, Neil M. Burgess, Megan E. Little, Linda M. Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2022
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWeb Data Mining and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerchMercury (programming language)FisheryGeographyBiologyComputer scienceFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Excel spreadsheet for Fish Mercury Datalayer for Canada (FIMDAC). Until now, characterization of mercury (Hg) risks posed to piscivorous fish and wildlife through the consumption of prey fish has generally remained limited to local or regional surveys. Furthermore, spatiotemporal and sample characteristic effects in fish-mercury data can lead to difficulty comparing results from different studies. The Fish Mercury Datalayer for Canada (FIMDAC, Depew et al. 2013a) provides model-derived estimates of Hg in a common indicator species (12-cm whole-yellow perch), and represents a useful preliminary national-level standardized index of Hg exposure to piscivorous fish and wildlife. Please read the metadata file first before using. Metadata: Fish Mercury Datalayer for Canada (FIDMAC). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1210773. DC Depew, NM Burgess & LM Campbell. 2013. Modelling mercury concentrations in prey fish: Derivation of a national-scale common indicator of dietary mercury exposure for piscivorus fish and wildlife. Environmental Pollution 176:234-243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.01.024.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.011
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0780.045

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicWeb Data Mining and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207