Trends in Mirex Concentration in Lake Ontario Salmonines and Sediments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chinook (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and coho (0. tshawytscha) salmon and sediment cores collected from Lake Ontario during the summer and fall of 2003 were subsequently analyzed for mirex and photomirex. Mirex in fish tissue ranged from 0.011 mg/kg to 0.094 mg/kg (mean 0.048 mg/kg). Photomirex in fish ranged from 0.005 mg/kg to 0.045 mg/kg (mean 0.020 mg/kg). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to test for differences between mirex concentrations among all sampling years. A significant difference occurred between all sampling years (p=0.000). Temporal trends in mirex concentration were determined by testing for differences in the slope of the regression line of mirex concentration versus weight using analysis of covariance (ANCVOA). The 2003 sampling year was significantly different than all other sampling years (p=0.000) except 1999 (p=0.081). A comparison of the elevation of each regression line determined that the elevation lines for 2003 and 1999 were significantly different than all years (p=0.000). There was no significant difference between the elevations lines among the 2003 and 1999 sampling years. Mirex detected in sediment cores from Lake Ontario had a mean concentration of 134.01 µg/kg. A paired t-test indicated no significant difference in mirex concentration between correlating sample intervals of the cores.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".