MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969230299 · doi:10.2166/wqrjc.2013.047

Evaluation of an in situ early life stage test with cutthroat trout, Oncorhynchus clarki, for environmental monitoring – a case study using mine effluent

2013· article· en· W1969230299 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ben A. Chalmers, James R. Elphick, Guy Gilron, Howard C. Bailey

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Quality Research Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsNautilus EnvironmentalCollège BoréalMining Association of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTroutMesocosmEffluentEnvironmental scienceOncorhynchusStage (stratigraphy)FisheryEcologyFish <Actinopterygii>BiologyEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study evaluated an in situ early life stage test using cutthroat trout for potential use in Canada's Metal Mines Effluent Regulations' Environmental Effects Monitoring (EEM) program. Current field monitoring approaches focus on either adult fish surveys or mesocosm studies, but both of these have inherent limitations that may affect their suitability on a site-specific basis. This study evaluated an alternative approach, namely an in situ toxicity test, as part of an EEM program for a zinc, copper and gold mine. Hatchboxes containing cutthroat trout embryos were placed in a creek that receives treated effluent from the mine, and monitored through the swim-up stage to evaluate hatching success, survival, normal development and growth. Advantages of the method include: no feeding requirement during exposure, fixed exposure locations, relevant endpoints and high statistical sensitivity. In addition, the extended exposure period integrated long-term exposure variables, including low-flow and freshet events. This approach also has application to other salmonid species and types of discharges.

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)0.012
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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.560

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.186
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Quality Research JournalSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207