A subchronic <i>in situ</i> exposure method for evaluating effects in small‐bodied fish at contaminated sites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In situ fish-caging studies at contaminated sites can provide information that is more realistic compared to traditional laboratory-based studies. However, few methods have been developed for exposing sentinel fish species for subchronic durations, and fewer still are optimized for exposing small-bodied fish while maintaining fish health and growth throughout the caging trial. Those methods typically lack a feeding regimen during the fish caging trial. While that may be acceptable or even appropriate for typical short-term toxicity testing, it does limit the duration of the exposure, and may not be suitable when post-caging trials or observations are necessary. Returning healthy fish to the lab following the in situ exposure would be important, for example, in studies designed to examine long-term or multigenerational effects following an in situ exposure. In this article we describe a subchronic method for caging small fish at contaminated sites while maintaining growth and reproductive development. Fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) were caged in situ for 6 weeks, after which time they were returned to the lab where they were evaluated for health and reproductive performance. Growth and reproductive endpoints revealed no adverse effect on fish due to fish caging and related handling, demonstrating the suitability of our caging and feeding method for long-term caging studies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".