MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7133013599

Elucidating mechanistic interactions of pesticides with soil using nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy

2009· dissertation· W7133013599 on OpenAlexafffund
Azadeh Shirzadi

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2009
Typedissertation
Language
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPesticide and Herbicide Environmental Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaLibrary and Archives Canada
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsMagic angle spinningSorptionPesticideSaturation (graph theory)Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopyHumic acidSoil waterSolid-state nuclear magnetic resonance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The interactions of pesticides with soil at the molecular level are central to their bioavailability, bioaccumulation, transport and toxicity in the environment. Elucidation of the mechanistic interactions of pesticides is critical to understanding and eventually predicting their behavior in the environment. Here, saturation transfer double difference (STDD) nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy, is employed with both solution sate and high resolution magic angle spinning (HR MAS) NMR to determine the mechanistic interactions of pesticides with humic acid (HA) and whole-soil at a molecular level. HR-MAS is also used to obtaining information regarding physicochemical factors which influence sorption. The results suggest that electronegativity and electron density play a key role in the mechanism of pesticide binding, and the predominant modes of sorption are dipole-dipole interactions, H-bonding and pi-pi interactions. Physiochemical parameters such as background electrolyte and soil moisture content, which influence soil conformation are also shown to affect sorption mechanisms.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicPesticide and Herbicide Environmental StudiesFrench-language works237,207