{"id":"W2561614562","doi":"10.1002/ieam.1881","title":"A review of ecological risk assessment methods for amphibians: Comparative assessment of testing methodologies and available data","year":2016,"lang":"en","type":"review","venue":"Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management","topic":"Environmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology","field":"Environmental Science","cited_by":46,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"ca_institutions":"Environment and Climate Change Canada","funders":"","keywords":"Amphibian; Risk assessment; Invertebrate; Wildlife; Ecology; Fish <Actinopterygii>; Biology; Scope (computer science); Risk analysis (engineering); Environmental resource management; Environmental science; Fishery; Computer science; Business","routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false,"invisible_to_affiliation_only":false},"retraction":null,"screen":null,"direct_labels":[],"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0236414,0.001773003,0.003033784,0.01559771,0.0006652244,0.002981975,0.003428845,0.002146155,0.004100593],"category_scores_gemma":[0.05571051,0.001298524,0.003316063,0.01022963,0.001916533,0.004872749,0.001542885,0.002156593,0.0014372],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.002310775,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.005168432,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.004565659,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.005811818,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9835967,0.005577954,0.003952749,0.00134643,0.005353827,0.0001722444],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.8703606,0.1043781,0.008022412,0.002089581,0.01455769,0.0005915336],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"systematic_review","study_design_scores_codex":[0.00006683437,0.00007575146,0.001504016,0.039563,0.0002680001,0.0000980551,0.0002430825,0.001116416,0.0006712129,0.001925317,0.006571,0.9478973],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00006149851,0.0009045668,0.02346409,0.2245639,0.00315989,0.003581263,0.0009760964,0.004062023,0.004747852,0.01206007,0.7219933,0.0004253409],"study_design_candidate":"systematic_review","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"review","genre_scores_codex":[0.0008028265,0.9867768,0.008771172,0.0009803073,0.0002501952,0.00009284799,0.000202943,0.00008107579,0.002041872],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.006650458,0.9711325,0.0203208,0.0006763125,0.0002965716,0.0001934192,0.000241546,0.00006177085,0.0004265983],"genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","teacher_disagreement_score":0.0236414,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.1250291,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"machine_scores":{"provisional":true,"baseline":true,"maturity_gate_passed":false,"score_opus":0.2765350651558507,"score_gpt":0.4977850578808647,"score_spread":0.221249992725014,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","note":"Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed). Scores rank; they never assert a category."}}