MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sudbury Valley Trustees

2009· article· en· W24333709 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sarah W Day

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hazardous Materials · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The potential bioavailability of phenanthrene aged in soil was determined by using a self-dying reporter bacterium, and the results were compared to two physicochemical measures, Tenax TA(®) bead-assisted desorption, and hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin (HPCD) extraction. The reporter bacterium, capable of degrading phenanthrene as a sole carbon and energy source, was genetically reconstructed to die when it degrades phenanthrene. Therefore, population change of the reporter cells can be viewed as the quantification of bioavailable phenanthrene. When Ottawa sand was used as an aging matrix, the amounts of bioavailable phenanthrene (i.e. little gradual decrease) were similar, regardless of aging time, and consistent between the reporter bacterium and the two physicochemical measures. However, decrease in bioavailable phenanthrene with aging was readily evident in sandy loam with organic matter of 11.5%, with all three measures. More importantly, when the reporter bacterium was used, a rapid and significant decrease in the bioavailable fraction from 1.00 to 0.0431 was observed. The extent of decrease in bioavailable fraction was less than 40% in the two physicochemical measures, but was nearly 100% in the reporter bacterium, during the first 3 months of aging. Our results suggest that the phenanthrene fraction available to bacterial degradation, and probably the fraction that really manifests toxicity, may be much smaller than the fractions predicted with the physicochemical measures.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.870
Threshold uncertainty score0.749

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hazardous MaterialsSame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207