Sea urchin fertilization assay: An evaluation of assumptions related to sample salinity adjustment and use of natural and synthetic marine waters for testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most industrial effluents discharged into the marine coastal environment are freshwater in nature and therefore require manipulation prior to testing with marine organisms. The sea urchin fertilization test is a common marine bioassay used for routine environmental monitoring, investigative evaluations, and/or regulatory testing of effluents and sediment pore waters. The existing Canadian and U.S. Environmental Protection Agencies test procedures using sea urchin (and sand dollar) gametes allow for sample salinity adjustment using either brine or dry salts. Moreover, these procedures also allow for the use of either natural or synthetic marine water for culturing/holding test organisms and for full-scale testing. At present, it is unclear to what extent these variables affect test results for whole effluents. The test methods simply state that there are no data available and that the use of artificial dry sea salts should be considered provisional. We conducted a series of concurrent experiments aimed at comparing the two different treatments of sample salinity adjustment and the use of natural versus synthetic seawater in order to test these assumptions and evaluate effects on the estimated end points generated by the sea urchin fertilization sublethal toxicity test. Results from these experiments indicated that there is no significant difference in test end points when dry salts or brine are used for sample salinity adjustment. Similarly, results obtained from parallel (split-sample) industrial effluent tests with natural and artificial seawater suggest that both dilution waters produce similar test results. However, data obtained from concurrent tests with the reference toxicant, copper sulfate, showed higher variability and greater sensitivity when using natural seawater as control/dilution water.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".