MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7100526124

THE INFLUENCE OF SMELTER FUMES UPON THE CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF LAKE WATERS NEAR SUDBURY, ONTARIO, AND UPON THE SURROUNDING VEGETATION1

2016· article· en· W7100526124 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmerican Environmental and Regional History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeatheringSmeltingVegetation (pathology)Chemical compositionPollutionAcid rainSoil waterSulfur
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Analyses for sulphate, calciun~, and pH have been made on surface waters from 102 lakes and ponds in the Sudbury metal-smelting district, and data are presented for 35 of these. Sulphur pollution is frequently high within about 5 miles of the three smelters, many ponds exhibiting more than three times the sulphate conce~ltration normal for this area, and three waters more than 10 times this level. Outside about 15 miles distance the influence of smelter pol-lution upon sulphate concentrations in surface waters is negligible. As expected, many of the most polluted waters are strongly acid, with pH values going as low as 3.3. Sulphuric acid from air pollutio~l has also led to increased weathering of calcium from soils and roclis, so that this ion tends to rise in concentration not only in waters above pH 6 (as expected) but also in those below pH 5. Damage to terrestrial vegetation is frecluently marked within about 5 miles of the smelters, while it is seldom obvious to the untrained eye beyond this distance. Severe damage occurs chiefly within about 2 miles of the smelters.

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 score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.178 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAmerican Environmental and Regional History→French-language works237,207→