MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898313610 · doi:10.1002/etc.4259

An International Perspective on the Tools and Concepts for Effluent Toxicity Assessments in the Context of Animal Alternatives: Reduction in Vertebrate Use

2018· review· en· W2898313610 on OpenAlexaff
Teresa J. Norberg‐King, Michelle R. Embry, Scott E. Belanger, Thomas Braunbeck, Joshua Butler, Phil B. Dorn, Brianna A. Farr, Patrick D. Guiney, Sarah Hughes, Marlo K. Sellin Jeffries, Romain Journel, Marc Léonard, Mark E. McMaster, James T. Oris, Kathy Ryder, Helmut Segner, Thomas Senac, Glen Van Der Kraak, Graham Whale, Peter Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Toxicology and Chemistry · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersEuropean CommissionSanofiU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
KeywordsContext (archaeology)EffluentToolboxFlexibility (engineering)Biochemical engineeringRisk analysis (engineering)Environmental resource managementEnvironmental planningBusinessComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceBiologyEngineeringEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the 1940s, effluent toxicity testing has been used to assess potential ecological impacts of effluents and help determine necessary treatment options for environmental protection prior to release. Strategic combinations of toxicity tests, analytical tools, and biological monitoring have been developed. Because the number of vertebrates utilized in effluent testing is thought to be much greater than that used for individual chemical testing, there is a new need to develop strategies to reduce the numbers of vertebrates (i.e., fish) used. This need will become more critical as developing nations begin to use vertebrates in toxicity tests to assess effluent quality. A workshop was held to 1) assess the state of science in effluent toxicity testing globally; 2) determine current practices of regulators, industry, private laboratories, and academia; and 3) explore alternatives to vertebrate (fish) testing options and the inclusion of modified/new methods and approaches in the regulatory environment. No single approach was identified, because of a range of factors including regulatory concerns, validity criteria, and wider acceptability of alternatives. However, a suite of strategies in a weight-of-evidence approach would provide the flexibility to meet the needs of the environment, regulators, and the regulated community; and this "toolbox" approach would also support reduced reliance on in vivo fish tests. The present Focus article provides a brief overview of wastewater regulation and effluent testing approaches. Alternative methodologies under development and some of the limitations and barriers to regulatory approaches that can be selected to suit individual country and regional requirements are described and discussed. Environ Toxicol Chem 2018;37:2745-2757. © 2018 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of SETAC.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.013
Scholarly communication0.0130.019
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0140.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.004

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations49
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Toxicology and ChemistrySame topicPharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental ImpactsFrench-language works237,207