Aquatic reclamation in the Athabasca, Canada, oil sands: Naphthenate and salt effects on phytoplankton communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microcosm experiments with natural indigenous phytoplankton communities were conducted to assess the effects of waters from oil sands extraction processes, emphasizing the naphthenate and salt constituents. Process waters of varying ages (zero to eight years) remediation histories, and chemical composition were obtained from outdoor mesocosms and inoculated with phytoplankton assemblages from a reference lake in the study area. Community composition measures, including percentage model affinity (PMA) and canonical correspondence analysis (CCA), revealed significant community effects of water from systems less than five years old, with naphthenate concentrations greater than 20 mg/L, compared to water from the reference lake. Canonical correspondence analysis, PMA, and regression analyses further showed that naphthenate concentration was significantly correlated with community structure. Using CCA, groups of taxa characteristic of waters with > 20 mg/L naphthenates (including Botryococcus braunii, Gloeococcus schroeteri, Cosmarium depressum, Chrysococcus rufescens, Chromulina spp., Ochromonas spp., and Keratococcus spp.) were identified. Salinity, as reflected in conductivity, was positively correlated with naphthenate concentration and itself appeared to influence the community structure. The results confirmed an important role for naphthenates in ecological effects of process waters from oil sands mining, but the influence of covarying factors such as salinity requires further investigation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".