Behavioral response of <i>Corophium volutator</i> relative to experimental conditions, physical and chemical disturbances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The preference/avoidance behavioral response of a widely used amphipod in toxicity tests, Corophium volutator, was investigated in relation to the presence of anthropogenic physical or chemical materials in sediments. Exposure conditions, including the density of amphipods, the depth of sediments, amount of overlying water, and exposure time, were examined for their influence on amphipods' preference for field sediments and avoidance of coarse sand. It was shown that these variables did not affect the response; thus, conditions similar to published standard toxicity tests were chosen. A gradient of sediments spiked with potential habitat disturbances that can be found on a beach or in contaminated sediments, such as those in harbors, were tested. These substances included sand, seaweed, burned wood, coal, crankcase oil, and diesel oil. To enhance the interpretation of results and decrease the variability observed when tests were conducted at different times over the summer, exposures were performed over a gradient of spike material in reference sediments. We conclude that physical obstacles added to reference sediments lead to less correlation with the behavioral response than observed with chemical interferences. Amphipods' behavior ranked harbor sediments similarly to previous studies concerning the health of intertidal mussels collected in proximity to the sediments sites. For five sites, preference of reference sediments was observed until the level of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in diluted harbor sediments reached the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment sediment quality guidelines.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".