MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028223498 · doi:10.2533/chimia.2014.806

Chemical Aspects of Nanoparticle Ecotoxicology

2014· article· en· W2028223498 on OpenAlexaff
Laura Sigg, Yang Yue, Hannah Schug, Lena A. Kosak née Röhder, Flavio Piccapietra, Nikša Odžak, Carl W. Isaacson, Ksenia J. Groh, Renata Behra, Kristin Schirmer

Bibliographic record

VenueCHIMIA International Journal for Chemistry · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNanoparticles: synthesis and applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsNanoparticleNanotoxicologySilver nanoparticleChemistryEcotoxicityDissolutionEnvironmental chemistryReactive oxygen speciesOrganismCerium oxideNanotechnologyFish <Actinopterygii>EcotoxicologyMaterials scienceOxideBiologyToxicityBiochemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nanoecotoxicology strives to understand the processes and mechanisms by which engineered nanoparticles (ENP) may exert toxic effects on aquatic organisms. Detailed knowledge of the chemical reactions of nanoparticles in the media and of their interactions with organisms is required to understand these effects. The processes of agglomeration of nanoparticles, of dissolution and release of toxic metal ions, and of production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) are considered in this article. Important questions concern the role of uptake of nanoparticles in various organisms, in contrast to uptake of ions released from nanoparticles and to nanoparticle attachment to organism surfaces. These interactions are illustrated for effects of silver nanoparticles (AgNP), cerium oxide (CeO2 NP) and titanium dioxide (TiO2 NP), on aquatic organisms, including algae, biofilms, fish cells and fish embryos.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.707

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 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

Citations24
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCHIMIA International Journal for ChemistrySame topicNanoparticles: synthesis and applicationsFrench-language works237,207