MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

CONFIRMATION OF DOMOIC ACID PRODUCTION BY <i>PSEUDO‐NITZSCHIA AUSTRALIS</i> (BACILLARIOPHYCEAE) ISOLATED FROM IRISH WATERS<sup>1</sup>

2002· article· en· W2148305183 on OpenAlexaff
Caroline Cusack, Stephen S. Bates, Michael A. Quilliam, John W Patching, Robin Raine

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Phycology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine Toxins and Detection Methods
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Marine BiosciencesFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyDomoic acidIrradianceDiatomNitzschiaBotanyphotoperiodismPhytoplanktonEcologyBiochemistryNutrientPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A nonaxenic isolate of the potentially toxic diatom Pseudo‐nitzschia australis (Frenguelli) from Irish waters was tested in two separate batch culture experiments. When grown under a low irradiance (∼12 μmol photons·m−2·s− 1 ; 16:8‐h light:dark cycle) for up to 40 days, the culture produced only trace amounts of the neurotoxin domoic acid (DA) during late stationary phase. Growth at a higher irradiance (∼115 μmol photons·m−2·s− 1 ; 12:12‐h light:dark cycle) resulted in DA production starting during late exponential phase and reaching a maximum concentration of 26 pg DA·cell− 1 during late stationary phase. Liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry was used to confirm the identity of DA in the culture. Irradiance and photoperiod could be important factors that contribute directly or indirectly to the control of DA production in P. australis. This is the first record of a DA‐producing diatom in Irish waters, and results indicate P. australis may have been the source of DA that has recently contaminated shellfisheries in this area.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations77
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of PhycologySame topicMarine Toxins and Detection MethodsFrench-language works237,207