Baseline white sucker health and reproductive endpoints for use in assessment of further development in the alberta oil sands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adult fish health surveys are part of Canada's Environmental Effects Monitoring (EEM) programs for both metal mining and pulp and paper sectors under Canada's Fisheries Act.Similar protocols are used within the Joint Oil Sands Monitoring (JOSM) plan to develop baseline health for fish populations within the lower Athabasca River, Fort McMurray.Results reported here focus on the health of white sucker at five sites including upstream reference sites outside of the oil sands formation, a site within the formation upstream of oil sands industrial activity, and sites within the formation downstream of oil sands development.The objective here was to provide baseline data addressing questions regarding fish health based on site location.Additionally, an assessment of reproductive function (circulating steroid levels, secondary sex characteristics, gonad size and total fecundity) was conducted.To accumulate a strong baseline of fish health at the five sites, fish were collected for three consecutive years (2011)(2012)(2013).Consistent changes in the health of white suckers within the formation itself were demonstrated with increased change documented downstream of oil sands development (2011)(2012).Fish within the formation and downstream of oil sands development had increased condition factor and increased levels of internal fat stores relative to fish upstream of the oil sands area, changes confirmed in our 2012 collections.Ethoxyresorufin-O-deethylase activity in the liver was induced in fish within the formation with some increases downstream of oil sands development indicating increased exposure to inducing compounds, such as polycyclic aromatic compounds.Reproductive endpoints were not consistently altered in fish collected within the formation or downstream of oil sands development.Follow-up studies in 2013 identified potential improvements in fish health both within the formation and downstream of oil sands development.With a strong baseline of fish health presented here, the program will use critical effects sizes to monitor future fish health.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".