Use of a single epiphyte lichen species Hypogymnia physodes as an indicator of air quality in northern Ontario / by Helmut N. Pfeiffer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been determined that lichens are excellent indicators of regional \nair quality, since they are long-lived and totally dependent on atmospheric \nsources for nutrients. In the summer of 1987, samples of the epiphytic \nlichen, Hypogymnia physodes (L.) Nyl. were collected from 46 sites in \nnorthwestern Ontario, Twenty-eight of these sites were sampled around \nthe city of Thunder Bay, Samples were also collected from 6 sites around \neach of the northwestern Ontario communities of Kenora, Ignace and Wawa, \nMorphological observations of the lichens were made before sampling. \nChemical analyses were carried out and levels of A1, As, Cd, Cu, Fe, Hg, \nMg, Pb, Sand Zn were determined for each sample by atomic emission \nspectrometry. \nOverall levels of elements were low in relation to levels reported in \nother literature. The ranges of concentrations (ppm) of elements in H. \nphysodes sampled around Thunder Bay were as follows: Al: 185 - 706; \nAs: 0,9 -7,1; Cd: 0,2 - 1,2; Cu: 0,8 - 6,9; Fe: 114 - 691; Hg: 0,6 - 5,8; \nMg: 69 - 393; Pb: 3,9 - 48; S: 42 - 434; Zn: 7 - 92, The area to the south \nand southwest of Thunder Bay had the highest levels of most elements. \nThe area to the west had the lowest levels. The Kenora, Ignace and Wawa \nareas had low levels of most elements relative to Thunder Bay results. \nLevels of contaminants indicated an inverse relationship existed \nbetween levels of pollutants and the distance from the pollution source. \nA number of morphological observations correlated significantly with \nlevels of certain elements, suggesting possible indicator value.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".