Genetically determined resistance to lethal levels of copper by <i>Daphnia longispina</i>: Association with sublethal response and multiple/coresistance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of resistance to toxicants has been reported for a wide range of organisms. Two questions were addressed in the present study: Are genetically determined resistance responses at lethal levels (min to h) of copper associated with responses at extreme lethal (h to d) and sublethal levels and does genetically determined resistance to lethal levels of copper confer resistance to lethal levels of other chemicals? Twelve cloned lineages of Daphnia longispina, differing in their resistance to copper, were exposed to sublethal concentrations of copper and to lethal concentrations of copper, zinc, cadmium, hydrogen ions, and a pyrethroid insecticide (deltamethrin). Three kinds of toxicity assays were carried out: Survival time (death occurs in min to h; only for metals and hydrogen ions), cumulative mortality (death occurs in h to d; for all tested chemicals), and feeding depression assays (only for copper). A correlation between different levels of toxicity was observed only for extreme and moderate lethal responses to copper, and no correlation was found between lethal and sublethal levels of copper. Multiple resistance to lethal levels of toxicants was observed only for the pair copper/zinc.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".