MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033357145 · doi:10.1139/z06-166

Effects of pH, aluminium, and soft water on larvae of the amphibians<i>Bufo bufo</i>and<i>Triturus vulgaris</i>

2006· article· en· W2033357145 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jon Kristian Skei, Dag Dolmen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBufoBiologyGillLarvaAnimal scienceAmphibianBotanyEcologyToadFisheryFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Larval Bufo bufo (L., 1758) and Triturus vulgaris (L., 1758) were exposed to soft water (0.5 mg·L–1Ca2+) experimentally acidified to pH 3.9 to 5.9 and total aluminium concentrations of <10, 150, and 300 µg·L–1. Below pH 4.5 both species experienced increased mortality. The LC50(168 h) for <10 and 150 µg·L–1Al was pH 4.3 and 4.1 for B. bufo and 4.2 and 4.1 for T. vulgaris. However, Al3+increased the survival of both species, which may be due to the contribution of Al3+to the ionic strength. No B. bufo larvae died at pH >4.5, whereas T. vulgaris at higher Al concentrations suffered relatively high mortality at pH 5.1–5.9, where Al occurs mainly as Al(OH)2+and Al(OH)2+. Unlike external gills (T. vulgaris), internal gills (B. bufo) have their own internal environment and are probably better protected against the presence of these toxic Al species in the water. These Al species thus seem to be toxic to T. vulgaris larvae but not to B. bufo. Chloride was seen to be important for survival in water of low ionic strength, since the survival of T. vulgaris larvae, particularly at low Al concentration, increased at pH levels down to pH 4.3 when the water was acidified with HCl.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.166
Teacher spread0.163 · 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

Citations7
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicAmphibian and Reptile BiologyFrench-language works237,207