Bibliographic record
Abstract
A variety of organic contaminants can potentially have impact on aquatic birds by their affecting surface tension. Avian plumage constitutes a porous barrier to water and the air trapped between the feathers serves as thermal insulation. When the air is displaced, the birds expend extra energy to maintain a normal body temperature, but this response cannot be sustained for long, especially at low environmental temperatures. When energy stores are depleted, hypothermia and death ensue. Surface tension is the force that resists infiltration of water into the plumage. The critical surface tension for feather wetting is conservatively estimated to be in the range 38–50 mN m-1. The hypothesis that surface-active organic contaminants can have significant detrimental effects on aquatic birds was evaluated. New data obtained in a study of water penetration pressures in Lesser Scaup contour feathers show that the 'wettability safety factor' is reduced by about half during moult. That is, the critical surface tension was raised to approximately 49–58 mN m-1 in moulting Lesser Scaup. The energetic and behavioural effects of oil contamination are reviewed, and it is concluded that even small quantities of organic material may confer significant physiological cost. The available data generally support the hypothesis that waterfowl face a potential risk associated with chronic or periodic mild depression of water surface tension due to organic pollutants, including oils and detergents. However, much of the evidence is indirect and further research, especially long-term assessment of surface tension in marine, estuarine and freshwater habitats, is needed to determine whether a real environmental problem exists.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.991 | 0.993 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".