MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W328164696 · doi:10.2166/wqrj.2002.009

Follow-up Studies Addressing Questions Identified During Cycle 1 of the Adult Fish Survey of the Pulp and Paper EEM Program

2002· article· en· W328164696 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Mark E. McMaster, Melinda Frank, Kelly R. Munkittrick, Renée Riffon, Craig S. Wood

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Quality Research Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New BrunswickEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsPerchEnvironmental scienceFish <Actinopterygii>EffluentPulp millForage fishWeirPaper millFisheryEcologyGeographyBiologyEnvironmental engineeringCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Canadian federal government instituted an environment effects monitoring (EEM) program for the pulp and paper industry to ensure the long-term integrity of fish populations below the discharge of mill effluents. The program is cyclical in nature (every three to four years) and one of the components of the program is an adult fish survey which monitors wild fish health in the receiving environments. Cycle 1 reports were submitted in April of 1996, and the report for the James Maclaren Inc. mill at Thurso, Quebec, suggested some responses were evident in fish downstream of the mill discharge. However, the receiving environment was subject to inputs from other potential sources or confounding factors such as farm runoff, storm sewers, municipal discharges and and upstream paper mills. A review of other Cycle 1 studies also identified a number of problems encountered during the adult fish surveys. At this time, Maclaren researchers and Environment Canada set up a collaborative research project as part of their Cycle 2 studies at the Thurso site. Objectives of the study included a comparison of Cycle 2 results to their Cycle 1 studies, an assessment of the potential for the use of forage fish in the EEM program as well as an evaluation of reference site variability in the required EEM fish parameters. Collections in 1997 confirmed an increased male yellow perch liver size downstream of the discharge, but could not confirm reproductive alterations in exposed fish. It was possible to obtain all of the required EEM fish parameters from a small forage fish species such as the johnny darter, which may reduce the influence of fish mobility and other confounding factors on fish responses at some sites. Reference site variability was not a contributing factor in evaluating fish responses to effluent sources at this site.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.201
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.204 · 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.

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

Citations8
Published2002
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Quality Research JournalSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207