MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W225078329 · doi:10.2166/wqrj.2007.021

The Effect of Seafood Processing Plant Effluent on Sentinel Fish Species in Coastal Waters of the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence, New Brunswick

2007· article· en· W225078329 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marie-Hélène Thériault, Simon C. Courtenay, Kelly R. Munkittrick, Alyre G. Chiasson

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Quality Research Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New BrunswickUniversité de MonctonFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayEstuaryEffluentBiologyFundulusFisheryNutrientSentinel speciesFish <Actinopterygii>EcologyEnvironmental scienceOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study evaluated effects of effluents discharged by seafood processing plants on populations of fish living in shallow estuarine waters of the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence. To monitor potential nutrient and/or toxicity impacts on fish populations living and possibly feeding in the effluent, we measured indices of survival (age), growth (weight-at-age), reproduction (gonad weight), and energy storage (liver weight, condition factor) on mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus) and Atlantic silverside (Menidia menidia) in spring, summer, and fall. Fish exposed to effluents in three bays were compared to fish from a local reference site within the same bay and from regional reference sites in bays without seafood plants. Mummichog caught near seafood processing plants showed a number of differences from reference fish consistent with a localized nutrient enrichment effect including elevated growth (3 of 3 plants), liver size (2 of 3), and condition factor (1 of 3) in at least one of the months sampled. Female silverside caught near one of the three fish plants showed an elevated condition factor in spring, but otherwise silverside did not differ significantly from all four reference sites. In a number of cases, fish exposed to effluent differed from reference fish sampled from bays without fish plants but not from the local reference site, implying that the entire bay was affected either by the seafood processing plant or by some other factors. No harmful impacts such as reduced growth or survival were found in our study, possibly because the processing plants studied were relatively small and the amounts of waste discharged could be flushed by tides and currents and/or assimilated by the fish and other biota in the receiving environments.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.569

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.321
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.

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

Citations19
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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