MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104931464 · doi:10.1139/s05-016

Persistence of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in agricultural soils

2006· article· en· W2104931464 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Angela Lorenzen, Kent Burnison, Mark R. Servos, Edward Topp

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Engineering and Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsBiosolidsEnvironmental chemistrySoil waterEndocrine disruptorBioassayNonylphenolEnvironmental scienceEarthwormSurface runoffBiologyEndocrine systemAgronomyEcologyChemistryEnvironmental engineeringHormoneEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biosolids and animal wastes can contain natural hormones or synthetic chemicals that have the potential to disrupt endocrine function in wildlife should they move offsite. The persistence in soil of estrogenic substances that could reach agricultural land via fertilization with organic amendments has been evaluated. 4-Nonylphenol, ethynylestradiol, estradiol, and estrone are rapidly dissipated in soils under a range of conditions typical of a temperate growing season with half-lives ranging from a few hours to a few days. We conclude that these chemicals are rapidly removed from aerated soils under temperate growing conditions such that application methods that minimize preferential flow or runoff of animal or human wastes should protect adjacent water from contamination. The use of recombinant yeast and cell culture estrogen receptor gene transcription bioassays were investigated as potential tools to detect non-labile estrogenic or anti-estrogenic substances in runoff from soils receiving liquid swine slurry or biosolids. Key words: biosolids, manures, endocrine disruption, estrogen, nonylphenol, soil persistence, bioassay.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.736
Threshold uncertainty score0.367

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations21
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Engineering and ScienceSame topicPharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental ImpactsFrench-language works237,207