Overview of Freshwater Fish Studies from the Pulp and Paper Environmental Effects Monitoring Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The second cycle of the pulp and paper environmental effects monitoring (EEM) program reported its results on April 1, 2000, and preliminary analysis of the fish survey results have been conducted. The EEM program is a cyclical evaluation of the receiving water impacts associated with the discharge of effluent, consisting of evaluations of fish populations, benthic invertebrate communities, effluent toxicity and other components. This paper represents a summary of the preliminary evaluations of 114 EEM surveys for the fish survey results, as reported by the consulting companies to the mills. Less than 10% of the cases failed to find a statistical difference in the key measurements of gonad size, liver size and condition factor. When effects were seen in a sex of one species, 67% of the time, a similar effect was seen in the opposite sex and when a difference was seen in one sex of one species, 54% of the time, the same difference was seen in the same direction in a second species sampled at that site. This reflects that differences were often consistent between sexes and consistent between species. Results, problems encountered, and lessons learned will be compared for cycle 1 and 2 data, and general response patterns and national trends in reported data will be presented. A summary of research needs is presented, as are recommendations for cycle 3 pulp and paper. New developments in the program reflect some of the adaptations developed for metal mining EEM, including a) setting alpha and beta equal, and its consequences for study design and interpretation, b) discussion of the role of effect size in power analysis and study design, and c) non-lethal sampling protocols for EEM.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".