MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158101589 · doi:10.1002/etc.526

Kraft mill effluent survey: Progress toward best management practices for reducing effects on fish reproduction

2011· article· en· W2158101589 on OpenAlexaff
Tibor Kovács, P. Martel, Brian O’Connor, Joanne L. Parrott, Mark E. McMaster, Glen J. Van Der Kraak, Deborah L. MacLatchy, Michael R. van den Heuvel, L. Mark Hewitt

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Toxicology and Chemistry · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward IslandWilfrid Laurier UniversityEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversity of GuelphFPInnovations
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFish <Actinopterygii>ReproductionEffluentMillKraft paperEnvironmental scienceFisheryBiologyToxicologyEcologyPulp and paper industryChemistryEngineeringEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pulp and paper mill effluents have been linked to effects on fish reproduction for more than 25 years. To date, the causes of these effects and remedial strategies have eluded investigators. Recent work has shown that the degree of reproductive effect caused by a mill effluent is related to the overall organic content. If verified, this could lead to breakthroughs for best management practices (BMPs). For this study, the effluents from seven kraft mills were assessed for their ability to reduce egg production in fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) in the laboratory. At the same time, the effluents were analyzed for three parameters thought to be good indicators of organic losses: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), methyl-substituted 2-cyclopentenones (cellulose degradation products), and a gas chromatographic (GC) profile index, which integrates the total area of the chromatographic peaks of solvent-extracted effluents using low-resolution mass spectrometry. The results showed that the degree to which the effluents reduced egg production increased with increased organic losses as characterized by BOD and the GC profile index. Therefore, these parameters could be used to guide BMPs at kraft mills according to specific targets: BOD < 20 mg/L and GC profile index equivalent to effluent with BOD of 20 mg/L. Such targets should be achievable by good in-plant control of organic losses and optimized effluent biotreatment systems.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations29
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Toxicology and ChemistrySame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207