MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7095382561

Research | Article Lead Sources in Human Diet in Greenland

2013· article· en· W7095382561 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLead (geology)PopulationFood consumptionLead exposureConsumption (sociology)Ingestion
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although blood lead levels have declined in Greenland, they are still elevated despite the fact that lead levels in the Greenland environment are very low. Fragments of lead shot in game birds have been suggested as an important source of dietary exposure, and meals of sea birds, particularly eider, contain high concentrations of lead. In a cross-sectional population survey in Greenland in 1993–1994, blood lead adjusted for age and sex was found to be associated with the reported consumption of sea birds. Participants reporting less than weekly intake of sea birds had blood lead concentrations of approximately 75 µg/L, whereas those who reported eating sea birds several times a week had concentrations of approximately 110 µg/L, and those who reported daily intake had concentrations of 170 µg/L (p = 0.01). Blood lead was not associated with dietary exposure to other local or imported food items. Key words: diet, Greenland, Inuit, lead, lead shot, sea birds. Environ Health Perspect 112:1496–1498 (2004). doi:10.1289/ehp.7083 available via

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 score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.147

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.282 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMercury impact and mitigation studies→French-language works237,207→