Parasite communities as indicators of recovery from pollution: parasites of roach (<i>Rutilus rutilus</i>) and perch (<i>Perca fluviatilis</i>) in Central Finland
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
We compared parasite communities in fish taken from a polluted lake (L. Vatia) and two control lakes before (1986) and after (1995) nine years of markedly reduced chemical and nutrient loading from a pulpmill in central Finland. Discriminant analyses of the 1995 data, using a function based on the 1986 data, showed that the parasite communities in the fish from the two control lakes had changed relatively little, whereas those from L. Vatia had converged on those from the mesotrophic control lake, indicating substantial recovery from the effects of pollution. Only a few species of parasites provided evidence for recovery. These were anodontid glochidia, which had increased markedly in perch, Rhipidocotyle fennica in roach and R. campanula in both fish species. This suggests that the recovery of the polluted lake involved increased populations of anadontid clams in shallow waters. On the other side decrease of Dermocystidium percae on perch fins and Ichthyophthirius multifiliis on roach indicate increased immune responses in the fish, reflecting better water quality. Other parts of the system have apparently not yet recovered.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it