MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971271260 · doi:10.1080/03601230600964316

Review of Recent Ecotoxicological Studies on Cladocerans

2006· review· en· W1971271260 on OpenAlexfundno aff
S. S. S. Sarma, S. Nandini

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Science and Health Part B · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsDaphnia pulexDaphnia magnaEcotoxicologyCeriodaphnia dubiaBranchiopodaCladoceraBiologyDaphniaPulexToxicologyBenthic zoneBioassayEnvironmental toxicologyEcotoxicityZoologyEcologyToxicityZooplanktonChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cladocerans have been widely used as the bioassay organisms in evaluating the impact of different toxic substances. Literature survey during the last 10 years revealed that cladoceran ecotoxicological research has been in an exponential phase constituting nearly 10% of publications on this group. Many studies have considered typically planktonic taxa such as Daphnia magna, D. pulex, Moina macrocopa, M. micrura and Ceriodaphania dubia. Experimental data on toxicity tests, to a lesser extent, are also available for littoral-benthic genera such as Simocephalus, Macrothrix and Alona. Most toxicity tests are limited to the derivation of median lethal concentrations of various durations but mostly at 24 or 48 h. Studies related to the evaluation of changes in the life history variables of cladocerans as a result of sublethal exposure to toxic substances are not many, but gaining importance. The common toxic substances used in the cladoceran toxicity tests appear to be heavy metals, pesticides and a few natural toxins such as cyanotoxins. We review here the effect of different toxic substances on cladocerans based on both the field and the laboratory studies from an ecotoxicology point of view. Suggestions for the future cladoceran ecotoxicology are also commented on.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.176
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations150
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Science and Health Part BSame topicEnvironmental Toxicology and EcotoxicologyFrench-language works237,207