Cyst‐based toxicity tests XIII—Development of a short chronic sediment toxicity test with the ostracod crustacean <i>Heterocypris incongruens:</i> Methodology and precision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experiments were carried out with neonates of the freshwater ostracod Heterocypris incongruens to verify and complete previous choices of test parameters for a new culture/maintenance-free solid-phase microbiotest for freshwater sediments. From trials with increasing volumes of reference sediment, it was concluded that 300 microL was the most appropriate amount of substrate to be put in 12-cup multiwell plates with 2 mL of standard freshwater. Tests in 3-9 replicates eventually showed that six parallels were needed to have good assay precision (repeatability). Application of the final test protocol to oil-contaminated sediments from the St. Lawrence River in Canada revealed that the 6-day chronic ostracod microbiotest had less variation in repeated tests than did the 10-day contact assay with Hyalella azteca and hence can be considered more precise. Based on the 95% confidence intervals for mortality and growth of the ostracods in the controls (reference sediment) of the 56 tests carried out for the Canadian project, a validity threshold of 20% for mortality was eventually selected, in analogy with the acceptability limits applied in many chronic bioassays. A minimum length of 600 microm in the control sediment after 6 days' exposure was also taken as the threshold for good health of the test organisms and for reliable test conditions. The new microbiotest has been tailored in a handy and user-friendly new toxkit, the Ostracodtoxkit, which is particularly suited for cost-effective routine monitoring.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".