Letter to the Editor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Environmental Toxicology and ChemistryVolume 34, Issue 7 p. 1460-1462 Letter to the Editor Letter to the Editor Trudy L. Watson-Leung, Trudy L. Watson-Leung Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, CanadaSearch for more papers by this authorKim A. Mahon, Kim A. Mahon Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, CanadaSearch for more papers by this authorDavid G. Poirier, David G. Poirier Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, CanadaSearch for more papers by this authorRichard Chong-Kit, Richard Chong-Kit Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, CanadaSearch for more papers by this authorLisa Kennedy, Lisa Kennedy Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, CanadaSearch for more papers by this authorMelanie Appleton, Melanie Appleton Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, CanadaSearch for more papers by this author Trudy L. Watson-Leung, Trudy L. Watson-Leung Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, CanadaSearch for more papers by this authorKim A. Mahon, Kim A. Mahon Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, CanadaSearch for more papers by this authorDavid G. Poirier, David G. Poirier Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, CanadaSearch for more papers by this authorRichard Chong-Kit, Richard Chong-Kit Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, CanadaSearch for more papers by this authorLisa Kennedy, Lisa Kennedy Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, CanadaSearch for more papers by this authorMelanie Appleton, Melanie Appleton Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, CanadaSearch for more papers by this author First published: 26 June 2015 https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.3003Citations: 5Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat REFERENCES 1 Harwood AD, Rothert AK, Lydy MJ. 2014. Using Hexagenia in sediment bioassays: Methods, applicability, and relative sensitivity. Environ Toxicol Chem 33: 868–874. 2Ontario Ministry of the Environment. 2012. Hexagenia spp. test for survival and growth in sediment. Method E3444 version 6.0. Ottawa, ON, Canada. 3 Bedard D, Hayton A, Persaud D. 1992. Ontario Ministry of the Environment laboratory sediment biological testing protocol. PIBS 2067E. Queen's Printer for Ontario, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 4 Reynoldson TB, Bailey RC, Day KE, Norris RH. 1995. Biological guidelines for freshwater sediment based on BEnthic Assessment of SedimenT (the BEAST) using a multivariate approach for predicting biological state. Aust J Ecol 20: 198–219. 5Environment Canada and Ontario Ministry of the Environment. 2007. Canada–Ontario decision-making framework for assessment of Great Lakes contaminated sediment. PIBS 6223e. Ottawa, ON, Canada. 6US Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Methods for measuring the toxicity and bioaccumulation of sediment-associated contaminants with freshwater invertebrates. EPA 600/R-99/064. Washington, DC. 7Environment Canada. 1997. Biological test method: Test for survival and growth in sediment using larvae of freshwater midges (Chironomus tentans or Chironomus riparius). EPS1/RM/32. Ottawa, ON, Canada. 8Environment Canada. 2013. Biological test method: Test for survival and growth in sediment and water using the freshwater amphipod Hyalella azteca. EPS 1/RM/33. Ottawa, ON, Canada. 9 Milani D, Reynoldson TB, Borgmann U, Kolasa J. 2003. The relative sensitivity of four benthic invertebrates to metals in spiked-sediment exposures and application to contaminated sediment. Environ Toxicol Chem 22: 845–854. 10 Dermott R. 1981. Ingestion rate of the burrowing mayfly Hexagenia limbata as determined with 14C. Hydrobiologia 83: 499–503. 11 Winter A, Ciborowski JJH, Reynoldson TB. 1996. Effects of chronic hypoxia and reduced temperature on survival and growth of burrowing mayflies, Hexagenia limbata (Ephemeroptera: Ephemeridae). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 53: 1565–1571. 12 Henry MG, Chester GN, Mauck WL. 1986. Role of artificial burrows in Hexagenia toxicity tests: Recommendations for protocol development. Environ Toxicol Chem 5: 553–559. 13 Fremling CR. 1967. Methods for mass-rearing Hexagenia mayflies (Ephemeroptera: Ephemeridae). Trans Am Fish Soc 96: 407–410. 14 Ciborowski JJH, Hanes EC, Corkum LD. 1990. Standardized rearing materials and procedures for Hexagenia, a benthic aquatic bioassay organism. Proceedings, Ontario Ministry of the Environment Technology Transfer Conference on Environmental Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, November, 19–20, 1990, pp 374–382. 15 Corkum LD, Ciborowski JJH, Poulin RG. 1997. Effects of emergence date and maternal size on egg development and sizes of eggs and first-instar nymphs of a semelparous aquatic insect. Oecologia 111: 69–75. 16 Bustos C, Corkum LD. 2013. Delayed egg hatching accounts for replacement of burrowing mayflies Hexagenia rigida by Hexagenia limbata after recolonization in western Lake Erie. J Gt Lakes Res 39: 168–172. 17 Corkum LD, Hanes EC. 1991. Effects of temperature and photoperiod on larval size and survivorship of a burrowing mayfly (Ephemeroptera, Ephemeridae). Can J Zool 70: 256–263. 18 Hanes EC, Ciborowski JJH. 1992. Effects of density and food limitation on size variation and mortality of larval Hexagenia rigida (Ephemeroptera: Ephemeridae). Can J Zool 70: 1824–1832. 19 Drouillard KE, Ciborowski JJH, Haffner GD, Lazar R. 1996. Estimation of the uptake of organochlorines by the mayfly Hexagenia limbata (Ephemeroptera: Ephemeridae). J Gt Lakes Res 22: 26–35. 20 Bachteram AM, Mazurek K, Ciborowski JJH. 2005. Sediment suspension by burrowing mayflies (Hexagenia spp., Ephemeroptera: Ephemeridae). J Gt Lakes Res 31: 208–222. 21 Corkum, LD. 2010. Spatial-temporal patterns of recolonizing adult mayflies in Lake Erie after a major disturbance. J Gt Lakes Res 36: 338–344. 22 Elderkin CL, Corkum LD, Bustos C, Cunningham EL, Berg DJ. 2012. DNA barcoding to confirm morphological traits and determine relative abundance of burrowing mayfly species in western Lake Erie. J Gt Lakes Res 38: 180–186. 23 Friesen MK, Flannagana JF, Lawrencea SG. 1979. Effects of temperature and cold storage on developmental time and viability of eggs of the burrowing mayfly Hexagenia rigida (Ephemeroptera: Ephemeridae). Can Entomol 111: 665–673. 24 Giberson DJ, Rosenberg DM. 1992. Egg development in Hexagenia limbata (Ephemeroptera: Ephemeridae) from Southern Indian Lake, Manitoba: Temperature effects and diapause. J N Am Benthol Soc 11: 194–203. 25 McCafferty WP, Pereira C. 1984. Effects of developmental thermal regimes on two mayfly species and their taxonomic interpretation. Ann Entomol Soc Am 77: 69–87. 26 Van Geest, JL, Poirier DG, Sibley PK, Solomon KR. 2011. Validation of Ontario's new laboratory-based bioaccumulation methods with in situ field data. Environ Toxicol Chem 30: 950–958. 27 Van Geest JL, Poirier DG, Sibley PK, Solomon KR. 2010. Measuring bioaccumulation of contaminants from field-collected sediment in freshwater organisms: A critical review of laboratory methods. Environ Toxicol Chem 29: 2391–2401. 28 Van Geest JL, Poirier DG, Solomon KR, Sibley PK. 2011. A comparison of the bioaccumulation potential of three freshwater organisms to sediment-associated contaminants under laboratory conditions. Environ Toxicol Chem 30: 939–949. Citing Literature Volume34, Issue7July 2015Pages 1460-1462 ReferencesRelatedInformation
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 | 0.003 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.038 |
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".