MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2985492862 · doi:10.5376/ijms.2019.09.0003

Total Hydrocarbon Concentration in the Tissues of <i>Clarias gariepinus</i> of Taylor Creek, Niger Delta

2019· article· en· W2985492862 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Y. B. Eremasi, G. N. Anaero-Nweke, I. K. E. Ekweozor

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Marine Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFish Biology and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClarias gariepinusGillNiger deltaAnimal scienceDeltaVeterinary medicineFaunaEnvironmental chemistryBiologyChemistryFisheryEcologyCatfishFish <Actinopterygii>Medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Total Hydrocarbon Concentration in the tissues (gills, muscle and liver) of&nbsp; Clarias gariepinus &nbsp;was determined along the stretch of Taylor creek in Bayelsa State Niger Delta. Seven (7) sample points were selected along the stretch of the Creek and selected spilled sites. Samples were collected in monthly basis from November 2015 to October 2016 and analysed following standard procedures using Spectronic 21D Spectrophotometer. THC were in the order; liver &gt; gills &gt; muscle. Their concentrations ranged from 14.53 mg/kg to 21.53 mg / kg in the liver, 12.20 mg/kg - 19.19 mg/kg in the gills and 8.85 mg/kg &ndash; 10.60 mg/kg in the muscle tissues of&nbsp; Clarias gariepinus . Statistically the values were significant (P&lt;0.05). The results showed that Total Hydrocarbon Concentrations in the studied fauna exceeded the WHO recommended limits of 0.001&micro;g/g for seafood. Hence, consumption of&nbsp; Clarias gariepinus&nbsp; from the Creek should be reduced to prevent adverse health effects on consumers and also anthropogenic activities along the creek and shorelines should be regulated and monitored to prevent further contamination of other aquatic species.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.523
Threshold uncertainty score0.309

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Marine ScienceSame topicFish Biology and Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207