Classifying probabilities of acute toxicity in marine sediments with empirically derived sediment quality guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Matching, marine sediment chemistry, and toxicity data(n = 1,513), compiled from three studies conducted in the United States, were analyzed to determine both the frequency of acute toxicity to amphipods and average percentage survival in laboratory bioassays within ranges in toxicant concentrations. We determined that the probability of observing acute toxicity was relatively low (<10%) and that average control-adjusted survival equaled or exceeded 92% in samples in which sediment quality guidelines were not exceeded. Both the incidence of toxicity increased and average survival decreased as chemical concentrations increased relative to the guidelines. In sediments with highest contaminant concentrations, 73 to 83% of the samples were highly toxic, and average control-adjusted amphipod survival was 37 to 46%. Results of this study confirm that the relationships between sediment chemical concentrations and toxicity reported in a previous study were robust. Further, they indicate that numerical guidelines for saltwater sediments can be used to estimate the probability of observing toxic effects in acute amphipod tests.
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 | 0.006 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".