MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7097829444

Factors Influencing Mercury in Freshwater Surface Sediments of Northeastern North America

2004· article· en· W7097829444 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMethylmercurySedimentMercury (programming language)WetlandHydrology (agriculture)WatershedOrganic matterAquatic ecosystem
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. We report on an inventory and analysis of sediment mercury (Hg) concentrations from 579 sites across northeastern North America. Sediment Hg concentrations ranged from the limit of detection ca. 0.01–3.7 lg g)1 (dry weight, d.w.), and the average concentration was 0.19 lg g)1 (d.w.) Sediment methylmercury concentrations ranged from 0.15 to 21 ng g)1 (d.w.) and the mean concentration was 3.83 ng g)1 (d.w.). Total Hg concentrations (HgT) were greatest in lakes> reservoirs> rivers, although the proportion of Hg as methylmercury showed an inverse pattern. Total Hg was weakly and positively correlated with the sediment organic matter and percent of watershed as forested land, and weakly and negatively correlated with sediment solids content, drainage area, and agricultural land. Sediment meth-ylmercury concentrations were weakly and positively correlated to wetland area, and weakly and negatively correlated to drainage area. Methylmercury, expressed as a percentage of HgT was positively correlated to agricultural land area. For sites with co-located sediment and fish-tissue sampling results, there was no relationship between sediment Hg and fish-tissue Hg. Finally, our data indicate that at least 44 % of waters across the region have sediment HgT concentrations in excess of Canadian and United States minimum sediment contaminant guidelines for the protection of aquatic biota.

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)0.001
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 score0.740
Threshold uncertainty score0.518

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.227 · 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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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