MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2560459218 · doi:10.5376/ija.2016.06.0022

Impact of Wurukum Abattoir Effluent on River Benue Nigeria, Using Macroinvertebrates as Bioindicators

2016· article· en· W2560459218 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Edward Terhemen Akange, J.A. Chaha, Johnson Odo

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Aquaculture · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality and Pollution Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioindicatorEnvironmental scienceEffluentWater qualityAbundance (ecology)Biomass (ecology)PollutionEcologyBiologyEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The pollution status of Wurukum Abattoir was assessed using macroinvertebrates as bioindicators for a period of four months (November, 2015 - February, 2016). Abundance-Biomass comparison was used to evaluate the number (abundance) and weight (biomass) of macroinvetebrates so as to determine their tolerance or otherwise to the abattoir effluent. Four stations were selected along the River Benue with station B as the point of discharge. Water samples and bottom sediments were collected for the measurement of water physico-chemistry and macroinvertebrates. An assessment of the macroinvertebrates showed the percentage abundance of pollution-tolerant species such as Chiromonus larvae (3.4%), Eristalis tennax (17.93), Tubifex tubifex (52.45%) and Macrobdella decora (3.54%) in stations B was attributable to the effect of the abattoir waste discharged into River Benue. The ABC curve also indicated showed the abundance curve laying above the biomass curve at station B. The water quality parameters recorded higher concentrations at station B than other stations for EC (496.50 ± 6.38 µs/cm); TDS (247.70 ± 3.17 Mg/L); BOD (0.91 ± 0.08 Mg/L) while DO (4.23 ± 0.06 Mg/l) was lower at the point of discharge (station B). It was concluded from these results that the abattoir effluents had an impact on the water quality and macroinvertebrates composition, abundance and biomass at the assessed stations. The abattoir effluent could be effectively recycled into arable crop usage due to the high nutrient value.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of AquacultureSame topicWater Quality and Pollution AssessmentFrench-language works237,207