MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2772019845 · doi:10.1111/wej.12321

Toxicity and mutagenicity assessment of a boron mine drainage water

2017· article· en· W2772019845 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ferhan Korkmaz, Görkem Deniz Sönmez, Pınar Aytar Çelik, Mehmet Burçin Mutlu, Ahmet Çabuk

Bibliographic record

VenueWater and Environment Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Micronutrient Interactions and Effects
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi
KeywordsSalmonellaToxicityAmes testBoronContaminationEnvironmental chemistryToxicologyChemistryVeterinary medicineBiologyMicrobiologyBacteriaMedicineEcologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study was aimed to assess toxicity of boron mine drainage (BMD) water in Kırka borough of Turkey, which is one of the most important boron deposit sites in the world. Three complementary tests were done to assess the toxicity of BMD water. Root growth inhibition tests showed that EC 50 value of BMD water sample was approximately 3.85% of concentration. Furthermore, mutagenicity was analysed utilising Ames Salmonella Mutagenicity Test and Muta‐ChromoPlate kit system (Environmental Biodetection Products Inc., Ontario, Canada). Salmonella typhimurium TA 98 strain for all concentrations and Salmonella typhimurium TA100 strain for the highest concentrations of BMD water in the absence of metabolic activation significantly stimulated mutagenic activity and increased the numbers of revertant colonies for several concentrations compared to spontaneous revertant colonies. RAPD‐PCR result and the polymorphism percentage proved that the effect of boron contamination was seen on DNA level.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater and Environment JournalSame topicPlant Micronutrient Interactions and EffectsFrench-language works237,207