MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7162106082 · doi:10.82308/17713

Mercury and selenium in Beluga teeth: tools for biomonitoring and dietary exposure assessment

2007· dissertation· en· W7162106082 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
April Laura Kinghorn-Taenzer

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBelugaBeluga WhaleMercury (programming language)BiomonitoringSeleniumMERCURY EXPOSUREHeavy metals

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Beluga teeth are evaluated as biomonitors of heavy metal accumulation in beluga soft tissues and contaminant exposure in people who consume beluga as part of a traditional diet. Selenium, which protects marine mammals from the toxic effects of mercury, was measured in beluga teeth for the first time using hydride-generation atomic fluorescence spectrometry. Tooth selenium concentrations are shown to be moderately strong predictors of liver and muscle selenium, validating the use of teeth as a selenium biomonitor. Dietary exposure to mercury from the consumption of beluga was compared between historic and modern Mackenzie Delta Inuit populations, based on measured mercury concentrations in archeological beluga teeth and modern beluga tissues. Despite higher mercury levels in modern beluga, estimated average mercury exposure from the consumption of beluga is higher for pre-industrial Inuit populations than for modern Inuit populations, due to the significantly decreased average consumption of beluga among the modern population.

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)0.001
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.323 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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