MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2334126609 · doi:10.1021/es503330n

Assessment of Arctic Community Wastewater Impacts on Marine Benthic Invertebrates.

2014· article· en· W2334126609 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kira A. Krumhansl, Wendy H Krkošek, Mark Greenwood, Colin M. Ragush, Jordan J. Schmidt, Jon Grant, Jeffrey Barrell, Lin Lü, Buuan Lam, Graham A. Gagnon, Rob Jamieson

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Science & Technology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine Biology and Ecology Research
Canadian institutionsGovernment of NunavutDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Nunavut
KeywordsBenthic zoneEffluentEnvironmental scienceSpecies richnessArcticEcologyWater qualityPopulationInvertebrateOceanographyEnvironmental engineeringBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study sought to understand the performance of arctic treatment systems and the impact of wastewater effluent on benthic invertebrate communities in arctic receiving water habitats. Effluent quality and benthic impacts were monitored in the receiving water of five communities across Nunavut that differed in the type and level of treatment achieved by wastewater infrastructure, the volume of effluent and receiving water mixing environment. We detected minimal impacts to benthic communities (<225 m linear distance from the effluent source) in four out of the five communities (Grise Fiord, Kugaaruk, Pond Inlet, and Pangnirtung), where the population was <2000 people. In these small communities impacts were characterized by increases or decreases in species richness, diversity, evenness, and density, and some differences in benthic species composition. This was in contrast to benthic sediments in Iqaluit (population 6699), which were devoid of benthic fauna up to 580 m from the effluent source in response to sediment anoxia. Variation in benthic community response between sampling locations was attributed primarily to differences in effluent volume, with effluent quality and receiving water hydrodynamics playing secondary roles. The results of this study will help to inform the development of northern specific treatment performance standards which will aid in prioritizing community wastewater system upgrades in arctic communities.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations31
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Science & TechnologySame topicMarine Biology and Ecology ResearchFrench-language works237,207