The importance of both potency and mechanism in dose–response analysis: An example from exposure of Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi) embryos to low concentrations of weathered crude oil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reanalyzes data from an earlier study that used effluents from oiled-gravel columns to assess the toxicity of aqueous fractions of weathered crude oil to Pacific herring embryos and larvae. This reanalysis has implications for future similar investigations, including the observance of two distinct dose-response curves for lethal and sublethal endpoints for different exposures in the same experiment, and the need to consider both potency and slope of dose-response curves for components of a toxicant mixture that shows potentially different toxicity mechanisms/causation. Contrary to conclusions of the original study, the aqueous concentration data cannot support the hypothesis that polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were the sole cause of toxicity and that oil toxicity increased with weathering. Confounding issues associated with the oiled gravel columns include changes in the concentration and composition of chemicals in exposure water, which interfere with the production of reliable and reproducible results relevant to the field.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".