MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1976260057 · doi:10.1002/etc.291

Great horned owl (<i>Bubo virginianus</i>) dietary exposure to PCDD/DF in the Tittabawassee River floodplain in Midland, Michigan, USA

2009· article· en· W1976260057 on OpenAlexafffund
Sarah J. Coefield, Matthew J. Zwiernik, Timothy B. Fredricks, Rita M. Seston, Michael W. Nadeau, Dustin L. Tazelaar, Jeremy N. Moore, Denise P. Kay, Shaun A. Roark, John P. Giesy

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Toxicology and Chemistry · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicToxic Organic Pollutants Impact
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersWestern Economic Diversification CanadaCollege of Engineering, Michigan State UniversityU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceMichigan State UniversityCity University of Hong KongDow Chemical Company
KeywordsFloodplainHazard quotientBioaccumulationIngestionAnimal scienceBiologyEcologyContaminationEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soils and sediments in the floodplain of the Tittabawassee River downstream of Midland, Michigan, USA contain elevated concentrations of polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDF) and polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDD). As a long-lived, resident top predator, the great horned owl (Bubo virginianus; GHO) has the potential to be exposed to bioaccumulative compounds such as PCDD/DF. Site-specific components of the GHO diet were collected along 115 km of the Tittabawassee, Pine, Chippewa, and Saginaw Rivers during 2005 and 2006. The site-specific GHO biomass-based diet was dominated by cottontail rabbits (Sylvilagus floridanus) and muskrats (Ondatra zibethicus). Incidental soil ingestion and cottontail rabbits were the primary contributors of PCDD/DF to the GHO diet. The great horned owl daily dietary exposure estimates were greater in the study area (SA) (3.3 to 5.0 ng 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalents (TEQ(WHO-avian))/kg body wt/d) than the reference area (RA) (0.07 ng TEQ(WHO-Avian)/kg body wt/d). Hazard quotients (HQs) based on central tendency estimates of the average daily dose and no-observable-adverse effect level (NOAEL) for the screech owl and uncertainty factors were <1.0 for both the RA and the SA. Hazard quotients based on upper end estimates of the average daily dose and NOAEL were <1.0 in the RA and up to 3.4 in the SA.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 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
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Toxicology and Chemistry→Same topicToxic Organic Pollutants Impact→French-language works237,207→