MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Major difference in mercury concentrations of the African big barb, <i>Barbus intermedius</i> (R.) due to shifts in trophic position

2006· article· en· W1978682815 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Zerihun Desta, Reidar Borgstrøm, Bjørn Olav Rosseland, Zinabu Gebremariam

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology Of Freshwater Fish · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Ecosystems and Biodiversity
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Council CanadaNorges Miljø- og Biovitenskapelige Universitet
KeywordsBarbusBiologyFisheryNile tilapiaMercury (programming language)TransectTrophic levelOreochromisEcologyFish <Actinopterygii>Cyprinidae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract – The African big barb (Barbus intermedius, R.) from Lake Awassa, Ethiopia is an important fish species, especially with the ongoing decline of the Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus, L.) fishery. Their diet and habitat use was studied using stomach content analyses, stable nitrogen and carbon isotopes, and transect netting. Mercury biomagnification was also determined. The big barb was found to primarily exist in the littoral habitat, with molluscs being their predominant food item. The proportion of small fish (Barbus paludinosus, P.) in the big barb diet tended to vary somewhat with size, with the largest fish tending to have the most piscivorous diet. Mercury concentrations in the big barb ranged from 0.01 to 0.94 mg·kg−1, and were positively related with size. Fish transects and stable isotope analyses suggest that there may be two feeding forms of big barb in Lake Awassa, with some larger fish preying upon fish (and accumulating higher mercury concentrations). With the declining Nile tilapia fishery in Lake Awassa, the implication of fishermen focusing on large big barb, with its associated higher Hg burdens, is significant with human health ramifications.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.179
Teacher spread0.173 · 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

Citations50
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology Of Freshwater FishSame topicAquatic Ecosystems and BiodiversityFrench-language works237,207