MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2337593390 · doi:10.2166/wqrj.2002.045

Complying with Effluent Toxicity Regulation in Canada

2002· article· en· W2337593390 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tibor Kovács, Juel S. Gibbons, Valerie Naish, R.H. Voss

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Quality Research Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDaphnia magnaEffluentToxicityRainbow troutDaphniaCladoceraEnvironmental chemistryEnvironmental scienceToxicologyAcute toxicityBiologyWaste managementFisheryEnvironmental engineeringChemistryFish <Actinopterygii>CrustaceanEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A questionnaire was sent to 75 mills in Canada requesting information on compliance in 1999 with respect to the toxicity regulation for liquid discharges. This regulation requires that at least 50% of rainbow trout and Daphnia magna survive in the discharge from the mill in toxicity tests. Of the 74 mills that responded, 81% and 74% reported no toxicity failures for process effluents in rainbow trout and Daphnia magna tests, respectively. For mills with infrequent or no toxicity episodes during the year (1 or 0 for trout; 1–4 or 0 for Daphnia magna), 89% and 92% of the mills met this criterion for trout and Daphnia magna tests, respectively. In addition to process effluents, 28 mills had separate cooling water discharges and, of these, ten experienced at least one episode of cooling water toxicity. Ammonia and accidental spills were most frequently cited by the mills as likely causes of process effluent toxicity. The most frequent causes cited for cooling water toxicity were chlorine and accidental contamination from other sources.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.613
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.000

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations5
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Quality Research JournalSame topicEnvironmental Toxicology and EcotoxicologyFrench-language works237,207