MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6884565540 · doi:10.1051/jp4:20030361/pdf

A 6,000-years record of atmospheric mercury accumulation\nin the high Arctic from peat deposits on Bathurst Island, Nunavut,\nCanada

2003· article· en· W6884565540 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSpringer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology) · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMercury (programming language)PeatArcticMERCURETemperate climateThe arcticFlux (metallurgy)Atmospheric pressureChronology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

\nThere is a growing interest in the atmospheric transport, deposition, and accumulation of anthropogenic Hg in the Arctic. To quantify the impact of industrial Hg emissions, the natural rate of atmospheric Hg\naccumulalion must be known. Mercury concentration measilrements and age dating oi peatfrom the Canadian\nArctic show that natural “background” Hg flux rather constant (ca. 1 microgram per sq. m per yr.) throughout the\npast 6,000 years. Mercury concentrations in surface peat layers are much higher, but chronology ofthese changes\ncannot be interpreted until more age dates are available. The elevated Hg concentrations in surface layers,\nhowever, are out of proportion with Br and Se, suggesting that there has been a significant human impact. Peat\ncores from southern Canada provide a record of atmospheric Hg accumulation extending back nine thozisand\nyears, with similar backgroundfluxes. Thus, pre-anthropogenic Hg fluxes in the High Arctic were not significantly\ndifferentfrom atmospheric Hg fluxes in the temperate Zone.\n

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 score0.272
Threshold uncertainty score0.548

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.235
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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpringer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology)Same topicMercury impact and mitigation studiesFrench-language works237,207