MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2184880316 · doi:10.2166/wqrj.2010.004

Spatial Variability of Reproductive and Size Characteristics of the Northern Mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus macrolepidotus) Collected Near Municipal Wastewater Discharges

2010· article· en· W2184880316 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Vincent A. McMullin, Kelly R. Munkittrick, David A. Methven

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Quality Research Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersCanadian Water NetworkCanada Research ChairsNew Brunswick Innovation Foundation
KeywordsFundulusGonadosomatic IndexSpatial variabilityEnvironmental scienceSampling (signal processing)BiologyGonadHydrology (agriculture)FisheryPopulationFecundityStatisticsFish <Actinopterygii>DemographyPhysicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Northern mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus macrolepidotus) have been widely considered to be suitable for environmental effects monitoring despite concerns of spatial variability observed in energy reserves and reproductive indices. In this study, temporal and spatial variability in gonadosomatic index (GSI), liversomatic index (LSI), and condition factor (K) were examined across two sites in 2006 and 10 sites (four sites exposed to wastewater discharge; six reference sites) in 2007. In 2006 GSI, LSI, and K appeared highly variable and significantly different for both males and females. In 2007, female K and gonad weight were significantly different among all sites. For males, significant differences in K and liver weight were observed among sites. Extensive spatial variation in GSI, LSI, and K observed between reference sites suggests current standardized Canadian Environmental Effects Monitoring (EEM) methods, including effect size and duration of sampling, should not be adopted for use with the northern mummichog F. h. macrolepidotus.

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 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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Quality Research JournalSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207