MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396990978 · doi:10.1021/acs.estlett.4c00316

A Decade of Global Atmospheric Monitoring Delivers Mixed Report Card on the Stockholm Convention

2024· article· en· W4396990978 on OpenAlexafffund
Chubashini Shunthirasingham, Michelle Hoang, Ying Duan Lei, Anya Gawor, Frank Wania

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Science & Technology Letters · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicToxic Organic Pollutants Impact
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
KeywordsHexachlorobenzeneEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental chemistryBiomonitoringEnvironmental protectionPollutantOrganochlorine pesticideAtmosphere (unit)PesticideMeteorologyGeographyChemistryEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Time trends in atmospheric concentrations serve to evaluate how effective the Stockholm Convention is in reducing or eliminating environmental releases of persistent organic pollutants (POPs). Twelve years (2005-2016) of continuous monitoring with a global network of 20 sampling sites reveals that concentrations of the pesticide endosulfan began to drop coincident with its listing as POP in 2011. Concentrations of other POPs started to decrease prior to listing and during the sampling period declined very slowly or not at all. Concentrations of some unintentionally produced POPs (hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorobutadiene) increased to become the most abundant and most widely dispersed POPs in the global atmosphere. Their formation processes and release locations need to be identified to facilitate the Convention's goal of curbing releases from unintentional production.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.005

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations20
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Science & Technology LettersSame topicToxic Organic Pollutants ImpactFrench-language works237,207