MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007765484 · doi:10.1002/etc.5620200816

Freeze concentration of ambient waters for toxicity testing

2001· article· en· W2007765484 on OpenAlexaff
Adrian M.H. deBruyn, Joseph B. Rasmussen

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Toxicology and Chemistry · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFreezing and Crystallization Processes
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsToxicityEnvironmental chemistryEnvironmental scienceChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have developed a method to concentrate aqueous samples for toxicity testing. This method relies on the phenomenon of freezing exclusion, whereby solutes are rejected from the interstices of a growing ice crystal. Tenfold freeze concentration gave excellent recoveries of inorganic and organic analytes, phenol and ZnSO4 toxicity from spiked natural waters, and toxicity of both pre- and postdischarge municipal wastewater. Simultaneous 10-fold concentration of strong mineral or humic ambient matrices did not substantially modify the expressed toxicity of phenol or ZnSO4, and it did not seem to generate spurious toxicity to the marine bioassay organism used (Vibrio fischeri). Hundredfold freeze concentration permitted the quantification of low levels of ambient toxicity in a wide variety of natural waters using a rapid, inexpensive microbioassay. Precipitation of matrix elements may limit the degree of concentration that can be achieved with highly mineralized or strongly humic waters. This approach is well suited to ambient toxicity testing, because it is nonspecific and has low potential for solvent contamination. Furthermore, the low temperatures involved minimize volatilization and degradation of organic contaminants.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.175 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Toxicology and ChemistrySame topicFreezing and Crystallization ProcessesFrench-language works237,207