MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001690949 · doi:10.1080/12265071.2002.9647654

Chemical analysis of transplanted aquatic mosses and aquatic environment during a fish kill on the Chungnang river, Seoul, Korea

2002· article· en· W2001690949 on OpenAlexaff
Joo-Hyoung Lee, Peny Johnson‐Green, Eun Ju Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueKorean Journal of Biological Sciences · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLichen and fungal ecology
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFish <Actinopterygii>Aquatic environmentAquatic ecosystemAquatic plantFisheryEnvironmental scienceGeographyEcologyBiologyMacrophyte

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In mid-April, 2000, hundreds of thousands of fish floated dead on the Chungnang River, one of the small branches of the Han River in Seoul.We examined the causes of the accident in detail, through analysis of monitoring data from the Han River Monitoring Project, which employed the transplanted aquatic moss, Fontinalis antipyretica.This allowed investigation of another possible cause of the fish kill: release of trace metals into the river from industrial sources during the rainfall event.In addition, we aimed to verify the usefulness of aquatic mosses as bioindicators of the event.Water samples collected 48 h after the fish kill exhibited low pH and high Total-N and Total-P, indicating that acidic compounds rich in nitrogen and phosphorus might be a major contaminant.BOD and COD were also very high.On the whole, the conditions of the river water were degraded at that time.Distinct trends were not observed in the chlorophyll phaeophytinization quotient and photosynthesis rate of transplanted mosses.However, mosses sampled soon after the accident exhibited the lowest values for those variables (p < 0.01), suggesting that stress factors in the river were diluted out over time.Heavy metals with characteristics of industrial effluents (Cr, Pb, Zn, Fe, Cu, and Cd) increased (p < 0.01), indicating that they were unlikely to be major causes of the accident.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.649
Threshold uncertainty score0.664

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.168 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKorean Journal of Biological SciencesSame topicLichen and fungal ecologyFrench-language works237,207