MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2009122855 · doi:10.3390/ijerph9030821

Cadmium Accumulation in Tissues of Sarotherodon melanotheron (Rüppel, 1852) from the Aby Lagoon System in Côte d’Ivoire

2012· article· en· W2009122855 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Yapi Dope Armel Cyrille, Kouamé Kouamé Victor, Tidou Abiba Sanogo, Boukary Sawadogo, Joseph Wethé

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgence Universitaire de la Francophonie
KeywordsCadmiumGillCote d ivoireTilapiaBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>Muscle tissueFisheryJuvenileFood scienceZoologyChemistryAnimal scienceAnatomyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study assessed the concentrations of cadmium in the gills, livers and muscles of a commercially important tilapia fish (Sarotherodon melanotheron) from Aby Lagoon in Adiaké, Côte d'Ivoire, between January and December, 2010. The organisms were grouped into two composite samples (juvenile and adult) of five individuals. Levels of cadmium were determined in tissues using Perkin-Elmer (AAnalyst 200) Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry (AAS) after a digestion method. Fish muscle appeared to have a significantly higher tendency to accumulate cadmium (1.19-5.18 µg/g dw) while gills and livers had minimum concentrations (0.07-1.32 and 0.12-1.25 µg/g dw). This study has revealed that the concentrations of Cd in Sarotherodon melanotheron muscle tissue were above the maximum acceptable concentrations for human consumption, thus precautions need to be taken in order to prevent future contamination.

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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations13
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health→Same topicMercury impact and mitigation studies→French-language works237,207→