MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W172288145 · doi:10.2166/wqrj.2005.046

Survey for Tributyltin in Water and Sediment in Canada in 1999

2005· article· en· W172288145 on OpenAlexaffabout
Roma Maguire, Suzanne P. Batchelor

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Quality Research Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMarine Biology and Environmental Chemistry
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTributyltinBiofoulingBenthic zoneBiocideSedimentEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental chemistryContaminationWater pollutionSeawaterOceanographyEcologyChemistryBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A survey of water and sediment from 152 harbours, marinas and shipping channels across Canada was conducted in 1999 to determine the extent of contamination by tributyltin (TBT) prior to the total ban on its antifouling uses being phased in over the period 2003 to 2008, and to assess the effectiveness of the 1989 regulation of antifouling uses of TBT under the Canadian Pest Control Products Act. TBT was found in sediments in this survey much more frequently than in water. The main conclusion was that by 1999 the regulation had been generally effective in reducing TBT contamination in water, but not sediment, in small-craft marinas and harbours. TBT continued to be found in some freshwater and seawater locations frequented by larger vessels, that could have been legally painted at the time with TBT antifouling paints, at concentrations that could cause chronic toxicity to aquatic organisms. TBT was also found in many marine sediments, and some freshwater sediments, at concentrations that could cause chronic toxicity to sensitive benthic organisms. In addition, TBT concentrations in many marine sediments could cause acute toxicity to sensitive benthic organisms. Because of the long persistence of TBT in sediments, it may pose a hazard to benthic organisms in some locations in Canada for many years after the total ban on antifouling uses of TBT.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.606
Threshold uncertainty score0.721

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Quality Research JournalSame topicMarine Biology and Environmental ChemistryFrench-language works237,207