Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The intricate nature of the vertebrate endocrine system creates several challenges that impede the understanding of the threats that endocrine disrupting substances (EDS) may pose to both humans and wildlife. While there are many similarities in the organization of endocrine communication across vertebrate classes, there are differences in hormonal activities and regulated events which makes generalizing EDS effects across species difficult. Aspects of endocrine functioning that may be affected by EDS include the biosynthesis, transport or availability, and metabolism of hormones. Also, EDS may interact with hormone receptors, which is a feature exploited by researchers as a screening method to identify potential EDS. There are many factors to consider in regards to the effects of potential EDS on endocrine functioning, including the timing of exposure, species-specific differences, and a multitude of other factors, which may impinge directly on the physiological endpoints used to determine if endocrine disruption has occurred. It is important to understand the status of the endocrine system before attempting to interpret reproductive status or the general health of the population. This paper provides an overview of the endocrine physiology of vertebrates and a description of the mechanisms by which EDS may affect endocrine function. As well, some of the factors that complicate our understanding of the relationship between exposure to EDS and compromised health in different vertebrate species are included.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".