MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2098243258 · doi:10.1002/etc.364

Response of white sucker (<i>Catostomus commersoni</i>) to pulp and paper mill effluent in the Androscoggin River, Maine, USA

2010· article· en· W2098243258 on OpenAlexaff
Barry Mower, Kelly R. Munkittrick, Mark E. McMaster, Rebecca J. Van Beneden

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Toxicology and Chemistry · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCatostomusEffluentPulp millPopulationEnvironmental sciencePaper millSewageSewage treatmentBiologyEcologyEnvironmental chemistryPulp and paper industryFisheryEnvironmental engineeringChemistryFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adverse effects of pulp and paper mill effluent on fish populations have been well documented in many countries over the last two decades. Some of the initial studies were at mills with conventional chlorine bleaching and no secondary effluent treatment. Following installation of secondary treatment, changes in bleaching technology to elemental chlorine-free bleaching, and other process changes, adverse effects on fish were reduced or eliminated at some mills. Because no two mills are exactly alike, it is difficult to predict adverse impacts of any given mill on fish populations. In 1994, a study of female white sucker (Catostomus commersoni) in the Androscoggin River, Maine, USA, showed induction of mixed function oxidase, reductions in gonad size and plasma estradiol, and an increase in plasma testosterone in fish downstream of discharges from three large bleached kraft pulp and paper mills, and host community municipal sewage treatment plants (STP). After all three mills switched to elemental chlorine-free bleaching in the late 1990s, studies from 2001 to 2003 found that the pattern of reproductive impacts on white sucker populations measured in 1994 was not repeated. In addition, population estimates of white sucker from 2002 to 2003 using mark-recapture techniques found that densities and biomass were well within the range of those of a reference population, and of those reported in the literature for unimpacted populations. Detailed studies immediately above and below each mill/sewage treatment plant showed no evidence of reproductive effects. However, a clear pattern of eutrophication was noted, which increased cumulatively downstream below each mill/STP.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentallow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational · Bench or experimental
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

Citations9
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Toxicology and Chemistry→Same topicFish Ecology and Management Studies→French-language works237,207→