Comparison of Toxaphene Congeners Levels in Five Seal Species from Eastern Canada: What Is the Importance of Biological Factors?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Environmentally relevant chlorobornanes (CHBs) were measured in blubber samples of harbor (Phoca vitulina), gray (Halichoerus grypus), harp (Phoca groenlandica), and hooded seals (Cystophora cristata) sampled in different part of the St. Lawrence marine ecosystem (SLME) and ringed seals (Phoca hispida) sampled in the eastern Canadian Arctic waters. The purpose of this study was to compare the levels of six CHBs (Parlar-26, -40/-41, -44, -50, and -62) among the five seal species. Seal species could be separated into three groups based on their respective sigmaCHB mean concentrations (+/-standard error): gray (49+/-3.9 ng/g lipid weight) and harbor (80+/-20 ng/g lipid weight) seals were more contaminated than ringed seals (18+/-7.6 ng/g lipid weight) but less contaminated than harp (370+/-87 ng/g lipid weight) and hooded (680+/-310 ng/g lipid weight) seals. These differences are not expected to be related to different sources of toxaphene contamination, since both the SLME and the eastern Canadian Arctic environments are thought to be mainly contaminated via atmospheric transportfrom the southeastern part of the United States. Thus, biological factors such as sex, age, nutritive condition, metabolism capacity, and diet of the animals collected were considered. Results reported in this study indicated that the diet is likely the main factor accounting for interspecies variations in toxaphene contamination in seals from eastern Canada.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".