Toxicity assessment of oil‐contaminated freshwater sediments
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performance of four microscale toxicity bioassays conducted on whole sediments was evaluated during a bioremediation project undertaken in 1999-2000 on a crude oil-contaminated freshwater shoreline of the St. Lawrence River, Quebec, Canada. The toxicity tests assessed included: (1) the Microtox solid-phase assay (MSPT), (2) the Biotox Flash solid-phase test (Flash), (3) the algal solid-phase assay (ASPA), and 4) the Ostracodtoxkit solid-phase assay. Data generated with these assays were compared with those obtained using the standard endobenthic amphipod (Hyalella azteca) bioassay. Bioanalytical comparisons indicated that all five solid-phase tests were useful in detecting the toxicity of oiled sediments; however, statistical analyses distinguished a difference in response between the invertebrate (amphipod and Ostracodtoxkit) and bacterial luminescence tests (MSPT and Flash). Based on these results, it is recommended that careful selection of biotests be made in the design of the test battery for assessment of residual oil sediment toxicity. Time-series toxicity data generated with ASPA indicated that oiled sediments in the freshwater wetlands of the St. Lawrence River remained toxic to phytoplankton for at least 65 weeks and that remediation treatment was able to accelerate detoxification by 16 weeks.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it