MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4412219927

Geographical trends of short-chain chlorinated paraffins (SCCPs) in ringed seals from the Arctic

2023· report· en· W4412219927 on OpenAlexaffabout
Katrin Vorkamp, Robert B. Young, Magali Houde, Heli Routti, Frank F. Rigét

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChlorinated paraffinsArcticThe arcticEnvironmental scienceChemistryGeologyOceanographyOrganic chemistry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chlorinated paraffins are high production volume chemicals used in in a variety of commercial and industrial applications, e.g. as lubricants, flame retardants and metal working fluids. They are commonly divided into short-, medium and long-chain chlorinated paraffins (C10−C13 (SCCPs), C14−C17 (MCCPs) and ≥ C18 (LCCPs), respectively), of which SCCPs are regulated via the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). Due to their complexity, the analytical chemistry is challenging, and different studies often lack comparability. The objective of this project was to study spatial differences in ΣSCCPs in ringed seals from Canada, Greenland and Svalbard. Blubber of juvenile ringed seals (N=4-5 per location) from a total of eight locations (Canada: 4; Greenland: 3; Svalbard: 1) were analysed with gas chromatography with Orbitrap high-resolution mass spectrometry (GC-Orbitrap MS). As blanks showed quantifiable levels of SCCPs, all concentrations were blank corrected. Mean ΣSCCPs ranged between 16 and 142 ng/g lipid weight, without statistically significant differences between locations. Standard deviations exceeded 100% in some cases, but were considerably lower for data without blank correction. ΣSCCP concentrations were generally lower than those of other POPs available for the same individuals from East and West Greenland. However, compared with previous studies from the 1990s to early 2000s, this difference seemed smaller, possibly indicating different temporal developments for SCCPs and other POPs. The applicability of the current analytical method for routine monitoring still poses challenges, in particular regarding sensitivity and blank occurrences.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.431
Threshold uncertainty score0.856

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.084
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMarine animal studies overview→French-language works237,207→