MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evolving Accumulation\nof a Complex Profile of Polychlorinated\nAlkanes in Canadian Polar Bears

2024· article· en· W6959378708 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPeanut Plant Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArcticBayFood webUrsus maritimusPolarThe arctic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Approximately 33 million t of polychlorinated alkanes (PCAs), also known as chlorinated paraffins, has been globally produced and used. Despite the higher bioaccumulation potential of PCAs in terrestrial ecosystems than in marine ecosystems, North American terrestrial PCA data are sparse and Arctic studies largely focus on short-chain PCAs, with minimal attention to longer-chain homologues in wildlife. This research delves into the dynamics of PCA accumulation and temporal changes across a broad spectrum of PCA homologues in polar bears (<i>Ursus maritimus</i>) from Hudson Bay. Subcutaneous fat samples collected over the past decade from adult male polar bears of the Western Hudson Bay (WHB) and Southern Hudson Bay (SHB) subpopulations were analyzed, identifying 109 of 545 PCA homologues, ranging from C<sub>8</sub> to C<sub>26</sub>. Analysis of 37 dietary fatty acids provided insights into dietary shifts and their influence on PCA profiles. Notably, SHB bears exhibited a decrease in PCA concentrations, reflecting marine food web influences. In contrast, WHB bears displayed increasing PCA levels, likely due to the use of more terrestrial and anthropogenic food sources. This study underscores the critical yet overlooked role of longer-chain PCAs in the Arctic food web and polar bear exposure, emphasizing the variance between subpopulations and the significant impact of dietary factors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.782
Threshold uncertainty score0.915

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0860.000

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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicPeanut Plant Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207