Sublethal Toxicity Findings by the Pulp and Paper Industry for Cycles 1 and 2 of the Environmental Effects Monitoring Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Sublethal toxicity tests successfully measured the improved quality of pulp mill effluents from the first cycle of environmental effects monitoring (1992–1996) to the second cycle (1997–2000). Test endpoints showed notable shifts to higher concentrations (less toxic). During the second cycle of monitoring, significantly more tests showed no effect in full-strength effluent. Five case studies were considered as part of this exercise. Most of the improvement came with installation of secondary treatment. Twelve Ontario mills with secondary treatment showed reduced toxicity, compared to results with primary treatment. All 29 sets of sublethal data showed higher IC25s during the second cycle, and 23 of these differences were statistically significant. Any other changes between the two cycles of study caused only marginal overall improvement in toxicity, judging by 12 freshwater mills in British Columbia which had secondary treatment during both cycles. Sublethal tests successfully predicted the zone of potential effect in receiving water, agreeing with effects observed in biological surveys. Overlapping zones from multiple discharges could also be demonstrated. In a situation near Niagara Falls, sublethal tests estimated the proportions of toxic loading that four mills contributed to one water body. The prediction was realistic; the actual toxicity found for a mixed effluent was 57% of that predicted from separate toxicities. The conservative prediction agrees with the usual less-than-additive sublethal action of combined toxicants.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".