<b>A Comparison of Sensitivity on Chronic Effects of Daphnia magna and Ceriodaphnia dubia to Several Kinds of Organic Chemicals </b>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current worldwide regulatory guideline requires evaluation of the chronic effects of chemicals on water flea Daphnia magna. Based on the life cycle of D.magna, chronic tests with survival and reproductive endpoints requires a 21 days exposure period. Ceriodaphnia dubia, a common freshwater invertebrate similar to the D.magna, has a shorter life cycle and therefore reproductive (and survival) endpoints have been established following about 8 days of exposure. No observed effect concentrations for reproduction were obtained for D.magna and C.dubia following exposure to general 10 organic compounds (ie. aromatic amines as pharmaceutical, chlorinated aromatic compound, polyaromatic compound and alkyl ester) according to the OECD TG 211 and the biological test method of Environmental Canada. These data were evaluated to determine whether one organism might be considered more sensitive. Reproduction data obtained from C.dubia chronic test provide similar sensitivity to D.magna in this study. Based on these data, C.dubia may be used as a cost-effective alternative and representative invertebrate species when assessing the potential risk on the organic compounds.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".