MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002632154 · doi:10.1134/s0097807807060140

Bioindication role of higher plants in the diagnostics of aquatic ecosystems: Case study of small water bodies in St. Petersburg

2007· article· en· W2002632154 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
В. В. Куриленко, Natalia Osmolovskaya

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Resources · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil and Environmental Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRussian Foundation for Basic Research
KeywordsMacrophyteEnvironmental chemistryAquatic plantAquatic ecosystemEnvironmental scienceBiogeochemical cyclePollutionBioaccumulationPhytoremediationBiomonitoringWater pollutionCeratophyllum demersumEcosystemEcologyHeavy metalsChemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The bioindication role of macropytes in the assessment of the environmental conditions of small water bodies under the conditions of a megalopolis is discussed. A comparative characteristic is given to the significance of macrophytes from different ecological groups, including hygrophytes (cattail, reed), hydrophyte (pondweed), and hydatophytes (Canada water weed, hornweed), growing in small water bodies in St. Petersburg, for the biogeochemical indication of environmental pollution by microelements (Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu, Cr, Ni, Pb, and Cd) and biogenic elements (K, Ca, Na, P, S). Possible mechanisms of detoxication of heavy metal ions in macrophyte organisms and their role in the stable functioning of water bodies in urban territory under the conditions of anthropogenic pollution are discussed. The prospects of the use of macrophyte groups for the bioindication of pollution and phytoremediation of aquatic ecosystems are analyzed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations11
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater ResourcesSame topicSoil and Environmental StudiesFrench-language works237,207