Concentration and distribution of contaminants in lake trout and walleye from the Laurentian Great Lakes (2008–2012)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biomonitoring programs for persistent, bioaccumulative, and/or toxic chemicals of concern in fish tissues have been operated by the governments of Canada and the United States in the Great Lakes since the 1970's. The objectives of these programs are to assess concentrations of harmful chemicals in whole body top predator fish as an indicator of ecosystem health and to infer potential harm to fish and fish consuming wildlife in the Great Lakes Basin. Chemicals of interest are selected based upon national and binational commitments, risk assessment, and regulation, and include a wide range of compounds. This review summarizes all available data generated by Environment Canada and the United States Environmental Protection Agency for chemicals measured in whole body homogenates of Lake Trout (Salvelinus namaycush) and Walleye (Sander vitreus) for the time period spanning 2008 to 2012 from each of the five Great Lakes. The summary shows that concentrations of legacy compounds, such as, POPs listed in the Stockholm Convention and mercury continue to dominate the chemical burden of Great Lakes fish. This assessment, and others like it, can guide the creation of environmental quality targets where they are lacking, optimize chemical lists for monitoring, and prioritize chemicals of concern under agreements such as the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and the Stockholm Convention.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".