MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200150301 · doi:10.1021/acsenvironau.1c00023

Systematic Underestimation of Pesticide Burden for Invertebrates under Field Conditions: Comparing the Influence of Dietary Uptake and Aquatic Exposure Dynamics

2021· article· en· W4200150301 on OpenAlexaff
Benedikt B. Lauper, Eva Anthamatten, Johannes Raths, Maricor J. Arlos, Juliane Hollender

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Environmental Au · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsPesticideInvertebrateEnvironmental scienceAquatic ecosystemToxicologyEnvironmental chemistryBiologyEcologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

. Toxicokinetic modeling using laboratory-derived uptake and depuration rate constants for azoxystrobin, cyprodinil, and fluopyram showed that despite the highly resolved water concentrations measured, the pesticide burden on gammarids remains underestimated by a factor of 1.9 ± 0.1 to 31 ± 3.0, with the highest underestimations occurring after rain events. Including dietary uptake from polluted detritus leaves and sediment in the model explained this underestimation only to a minor proportion. However, suspended solids analyzed during rain events had high pesticide concentrations, and uptake from them could partially explain the underestimation after rain events. Additional comparison between the measured and modeled data showed that the pesticide depuration in gammarids is slower in the field. This observation suggests that several unknown mechanisms may play a role, including lowered enzyme expression and mixture effects. Thus, it is important to conduct such retrospective risk assessments based on field investigations and adapt the registration accordingly.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.338
Threshold uncertainty score0.506

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations27
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS Environmental AuSame topicEnvironmental Toxicology and EcotoxicologyFrench-language works237,207