MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2064177342 · doi:10.1021/es900920b

Assessment of Nickel Contamination in Lakes Using the Phantom Midge <i>Chaoborus</i> As a Biomonitor

2009· article· en· W2064177342 on OpenAlexaffabout
Dominic E. Ponton, Landis Hare

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Science & Technology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental chemistryMidgeNickelEnvironmental scienceMetalloidMetalLarvaChemistryEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nickel (Ni) can be present in concentrations of concern in waters near mining and industrial sites. We tested species of the phantom midge Chaoborus as a biomonitor for this trace metal by collecting water and Chaoborus larvae from 15 lakes located along a Ni gradient mainly in the vicinity of smelters located in Sudbury, ON, Canada. We measured pH, trace metals, major ions, as well as inorganic and organic carbon concentrations in lakewater for use in calculating ambient metal speciation using the Windermere Humic Aqueous Model (WHAM). Nickel concentrations in Chaoborus species varied widely among our study lakes and could be related to concentrations of the free Ni2+ ion in lakewater if competitive interactions with hydrogen ions (H+) were taken into account We verified this inhibitory effect in the laboratory by exposing Chaoborus punctipennis to constantfree Ni2+ ion concentrations at various H+ ion concentrations. As expected, larvae exposed to high concentrations of H+ ions accumulated less Ni. Overall, our results suggest that Chaoborus larvae would be an excellent biomonitor for Ni in lakewater and as such would be a useful component of risk assessment strategies designed to evaluate Ni exposure to aquatic organisms in lakes.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations25
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Science & Technology→Same topicEnvironmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology→French-language works237,207→