{"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["metaepi_narrow","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.005252898,0.001002194,0.003371269,0.0002040634,0.0003273562,0.00003990045,0.001132909,0.0004810762,0.003188775],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0001187094,0.0007028394,0.0003172101,0.0003541748,0.001692384,0.0003849322,0.004059162,0.0006498274,0.00002575666],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0009403594,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00007129238,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00003191369,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.00001448307,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9927245,0.002336707,0.001979009,0.001875611,0.0003904283,0.0006937622],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9931682,0.003164256,0.002156999,0.001297609,0.00001072518,0.000202163],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"not_applicable","study_design_scores_codex":[0.00001795197,0.0008301522,0.002814353,0.02155446,0.001270089,0.000008455965,0.00001591379,0.000007382613,0.0003120884,0.0003214205,0.005658204,0.9671896],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00115675,0.001707562,0.00602406,0.01994507,0.00390006,0.00003791535,0.0002522516,0.0009370436,0.00003505384,0.000841754,0.9641278,0.001034668],"study_design_candidate":"not_applicable","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"review","genre_gemma":"review","genre_scores_codex":[0.0000903131,0.9508295,0.02676445,0.00007287069,0.0002624657,0.00646019,0.001583957,0.00005036851,0.01388589],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.0000380561,0.6284426,0.3695584,0.0001168615,0.00001474958,0.0008324104,0.0004492899,0.00003836544,0.0005092324],"genre_candidate":"review","genre_consensus":"review","teacher_disagreement_score":0.9661549,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9995423,"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."}}