Multiple lines of evidence risk assessment of american robins exposed to polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFS) and polychlorinated dibenzo-<i>P</i>-dioxins (PCDDS) in the tittabawassee river floodplain, Midland, Michigan, Usa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concentrations of polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs) and polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) in Tittabawassee River floodplain soils and biota downstream of Midland, Michigan, USA, are greater than regional background concentrations. From 2005 to 2008, a multiple lines of evidence approach was utilized to evaluate the potential for effects of PCDD/DFs on American robins (Turdus migratorius) breeding in the floodplains. A dietary-based assessment indicated there was potential for adverse effects for American robins predicted to have the greatest exposures. Conversely, a tissue-based risk assessment based on site-specific PCDD/DF concentrations in American robin eggs indicated minimal potential for adverse effects. An assessment based on reproductive endpoints indicated that measures of hatch success in study areas were significantly less than those of reference areas. However, there was no dose-response relationship between that endpoint and concentrations of PCDD/DF. Although dietary-based exposure and reproductive endpoint assessments predicted potential for adverse effects to resident American robins, the tissue-based assessment indicates minimal to no potential for adverse effects, which is reinforced by the fact the response was not dose related. It is likely that the dietary assessment is overly conservative given the inherent uncertainties of estimating dietary exposure relative to direct tissue-based assessment measures. Based on the available data, it can be concluded that exposure to PCDD/DFs in the Tittabawassee River floodplain would not likely result in adverse population-level effects to American robins.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".