MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2183089878 · doi:10.2166/wqrj.2010.017

Recent Progress in Understanding the Causes of Endocrine Disruption Related to Pulp and Paper Mill Effluents

2010· article· en· W2183089878 on OpenAlexaff
Michael R. van den Heuvel

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Quality Research Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicReproductive biology and impacts on aquatic species
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEffluentEndocrine systemPaper millPulp millPulp (tooth)BiologyHormonePhysiologyEnvironmental scienceEndocrinologyMedicineEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Reproductive impairment in fishes exposed to pulp and paper effluent has been observed in the wild for three decades. Despite intense research, identification of causative agents, if indeed the changes are strictly chemically mediated, has yet to be achieved. This review examines the body of research developed over the last six years that was directed at understanding the mechanisms of reproductive dysfunction in fishes associated with pulp mill effluent exposures. Research has continued to show diminishing effects of effluent exposure on fish reproductive physiology. Observations of exposure to androgens and estrogens continue to be observed and new evidence suggests that antiestrogens may be present. The presence of androgenic steroids remains a consistent observation, and those androgens appear to be native to wood. Recent studies have also suggested a number of alternate mechanisms beyond androgens or estrogens. One such possibility is that neuroactive substances are interfering with endocrine balance critical to reproduction. A second possibility is that some reproductive effects in the field may be due to nutritional factors, and thus reproductive impacts are caused by indirect effects of pulp mill effluent exposure. Ongoing mechanistic studies, particularly with paired field-lab components, are required to make further progress.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.376
Threshold uncertainty score0.207

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.320 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational · Other design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical · Review

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

Citations15
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Quality Research JournalSame topicReproductive biology and impacts on aquatic speciesFrench-language works237,207