AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ASSESSMENT OF THE ATHABASCA RIVER MAINSTEM OIL SANDS AREA USING WHITE SUCKER HEALTH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Governments of Canada and Alberta designed an environmental monitoring plan for the lower Athabasca River between Fort McMurray and its confluence with Lake Athabasca. This plan, known as the Joint Oil Sands Monitoring Plan (JOSM), included monitoring aquatic ecosystem health with a focus on wild fish in the mainstem of the Athabasca River. The fish health program for JOSM used endpoints developed through Canada's Environmental Effects Monitoring Programs for the pulp and paper and metal mining sectors under Canada's Fisheries Act. Fish can be sensitive to multiple stressors, are critical components of aquatic ecosystems, and have significant social and economic value. The objective of the fish component of the aquatic monitoring program was to provide necessary data and supporting information to address key questions regarding both environmental health of fish populations and fish health issues related to use and consumption. The JOSM mainstem program consisted of large bodied fish health assessments at five stations and small bodied fish health assessments at nine stations on the Athabasca River. The large bodied white sucker were sensitive indicators of fish health in the system as consistent changes in fish health downstream, within the oil sands deposit were documented. These differences were indicative of nutrient enrichment as white sucker had increased condition and increased levels of internal fat stores relative to fish upstream of the oil sands area. The fish biomarker, ethoxyresorufin-O-deethylase activity, was a good indicator of exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and indicated the potential for increased exposure to these compounds downstream of oil sands development. Tiers and triggers are being developed for the program to predict change into the future and to be used in management decisions for further development in the area.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".