MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7037728415

Endosulfan and g-HCH in the Arctic : an assessment of surface seawater concentrations and air-seawater exchange.

2006· article· en· W7037728415 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicByzantine Studies and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArcticSeawaterFugacityDeposition (geology)EndosulfanThe arcticSurface waterLatitude
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Arctic seawater concentrations of two currently used pesticides, endosulfan and γ-HCH, were collated from a variety of cruises undertaken throughout the 1990s up to 2000 for different regions of the Arctic Ocean. Surface seawater concentrations for α- and β-endosulfan ranged from <0.1−8.8 (mean 2.3) pg/L and 0.1−7.8 (mean 1.5) pg/L, while γ-HCH concentrations were 100 fold higher than α-endosulfan, ranging between <0.70 and 894 (mean 250) pg/L. Geographical distributions for α-endosulfan revealed the highest concentrations in the western Arctic, specifically in the Bering and Chukchi Seas with lowest levels toward the central Arctic Ocean. In contrast, γ-HCH revealed higher concentrations toward the central Arctic Ocean, with additional high concentrations in the coastal regions near Barrow, Alaska and the White Sea in northwest Russia, respectively. A fugacity approach was employed to assess the net direction of air−water transfer of these two pesticides, using coupled seawater and air concentrations. For α-endosulfan, water−air fugacity ratios (FR) were all <1 indicating net deposition to all regions of the Arctic Ocean, with the lowest values (0.1−0.2) evident in the Canadian Archipelago. Given the uncertainty in the temperature-adjusted Henry's Law constant (factor 10), it is plausible that equilibrium may have been reached for this compound in the western fringes of the Arctic Ocean where the highest water concentrations were observed. Similarly, FR values for γ-HCH were generally <1 and in agreement with other separate studies, although, like α-endosulfan, net deposition predominated over the Canadian Archipelago. In the central and eastern regions of the Arctic Ocean, as well as in the two coastal areas of this study, the fugacity ratios for γ-HCH where 1 indicating conditions approaching equilibrium. The elevated water concentrations and higher FRs in these coastal areas support the assessment that riverine/coastal sources are important for this chemical, but less so for α-endosulfan for which air to water transfer during the ice-free summer months is likely to be the major contemporary source to the Arctic. It is recommended that archived extracts of river water be reanalyzed for α-endosulfan to confirm this.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.354
Threshold uncertainty score0.638

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.201 · 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.

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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLancaster EPrints (Lancaster University)Same topicByzantine Studies and HistoryFrench-language works237,207