MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2501250252 · doi:10.13034/jsst.v9i1.89

Effectiveness and toxicity of oil spill reagents on Artemia Salina

2016· article· en· W2501250252 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Student Science and Technology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicOil Spill Detection and Mitigation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtemia salinaOil spillToxicologySerial dilutionChemistryCrude oilToxicityBiologyEnvironmental scienceMedicineEnvironmental engineeringOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To determine the safety and effectiveness of three potential reagents which could be used to manage a simulated oil spill (SOS). Methods: The effectiveness of three agents used manage a simulated oil spill was evaluated: liquid soap, human hair, and Enviro-Bond 403 polymer. To evaluate safety, 1 hour-Artemia survival was evaluated; serial dilutions were employed to construct LC50 curves for a normal environment (control 1), for a SOS (control 2) and for a SOS managed with each of the 3 agents. Results: Hair and oil were effective absorbents as only 12% and 20% of the oil remained at 1 hour, repsectively; soap was ineffective with 62% of oil remaining unbound. Over a 1-hour period there was a 63% reduction in survival in Artemia exposed to an untreated SOS, when compared to natural conditions (p=0.001). Oil exposure exhibited a classic dose response curve as more Artemia died as its concentration increased; its LC50 was 17.5%. Hair and polymer were well tolerated by Artemia – neither reached their LC50 and approximately 80% of Artemia were alive at the end of one hour. Soap, with or without oil, was toxic to Artemia and its LC50 was 7%. These results were statistically significant between the three groups (ANOVA; p-value = <0.001). Conclusion: Hair and polymer we both effective and well tolerated by Artemia in a simulated oil spill. Objet: Pour déterminer la sécurité et l’efficacité de trois réactifs qui pourraient se servir à nettoyer une marée noire artificielle. Méthodes: L’efficacité de trois agents en nettoyant une marée noire artificielle a été évaluée: celle du savon liquide, de cheveux humains, et du polymère Enviro-Bond 403. Pour voir si ces agents sont sûrs, la survie de l’Artemia a été observée pendant une heure, et les dilutions en série ont été faites pour construire des courbes CL50 représentant un environnement normal (1er groupe témoin), une marée noire (2e groupe témoin), et une marée noire nettoyée avec chacun des trois agents. Résultats: Les cheveux et le polymère ont été des bons absorbants car seulement 12% et 20% du pétrole y restait après une heure, respectivement. Par contre, le savon a été inefficace car encore 62% du pétrole y restait. Pendant la première heure, la survie de l’Artemia dans une marée noire non traitée a été réduite par 63%, comparé aux conditions naturelles (p=0.001). L’exposition au pétrole a produit une courbe dose-réponse conventionnelle car plus d’Artemia sont morts quand la concentration du pétrole a été augmentée; son CL50 a été 17.5%. L’Artemia a supporté les cheveux et le polymère puisqu’aucun agent a atteint son CL50, et environ 80% de l’Artemia ont survécu après une heure. Le savon, n’importe s’il y avait du pétrole, a été toxique à l’Artemia et son CL50 a été 7%. Ces résultats ont été importants statistiquement parmi ces trois groupes (ANOVA; valeur p =<0.001). Conclusion: Les cheveux et le polymère ont été tous les deux des agents efficaces que l’Artemia a supporté dans un environnement de marée noire artificielle.

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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.477
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.253 · 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