MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989586054 · doi:10.1897/03-521.1

Accumulation of tributyltin in <i>Hyalella azteca</i> as an indicator of chronic toxicity: Survival, growth, and reproduction

2004· article· en· W1989586054 on OpenAlexaff
Adrienne J. Bartlett, Uwe Borgmann, D. George Dixon, Suzanne P. Batchelor, Roma Maguire

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Toxicology and Chemistry · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMarine Biology and Environmental Chemistry
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversity of WaterlooFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyalella aztecaTributyltinBioaccumulationToxicityAmphipodaReproductionBiologyChronic toxicityToxicologyEcotoxicologyEnvironmental chemistryZoologyEcologyChemistryCrustacean

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The chronic toxicity of tributyltin (TBT) was examined by exposing two successive generations of the freshwater amphipod, Hyalella azteca, to sediments spiked with TBT. Survival was the most sensitive measure of effect, with lethal concentration resulting in 50% mortality (LC50) values on a water and body concentration basis ranging from 76 to 145 ng Sn/L and 2,790 to 4,300 ng Sn/g, respectively. Individual growth of amphipods was not negatively affected by TBT, and although reproduction might be more sensitive than survival, the data were too variable to use on a routine basis. There were no detectable TBT-induced differences in the response between first- and second-generation animals. The relationship between toxicity and bioaccumulation of TBT in H. azteca was determined and can be used as a tool to predict the toxicity of TBT in environmental samples. Body concentrations exceeding 2,000 ng Sn/g in H. azteca exposed to field-collected samples would indicate that chronic toxicity due to TBT is likely occurring in amphipod populations at those sites.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.635

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations28
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Toxicology and ChemistrySame topicMarine Biology and Environmental ChemistryFrench-language works237,207