MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Do magnetic fields related to submarine power cables affect the functioning of a common bivalve?

2022· article· en· W4285007831 on OpenAlexaff
Magdalena Jakubowska, Marcin Białowąs, Zbigniew Otremba, Anna Hallmann, Sylwia Śliwińska‐Wilczewska, Barbara Urban-Malinga

Bibliographic record

VenueMarine Environmental Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOcean Acidification Effects and Responses
Canadian institutionsMount Allison University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioenergeticsCockleLipid peroxidationAntioxidantRespirationOxidative stressBiologyToxicologyChemistryEcologyBiochemistryAnatomyMitochondrion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of the study was to determine the effect of static magnetic field (SMF) and electromagnetic field (EMF), of values usually recorded near submarine cables, on the bioenergetics, oxidative stress, and neurotoxicity in the cockle Cerastoderma glaucum. Bivalves maintained a positive energy balance, but the filtration rate and energy available for individual production were significantly lower in SMF-exposed animals compared to the control treatment. No changes in the respiration were noted but ammonia excretion rate was significantly lower after exposure to EMF. Changes in the activities of antioxidant enzymes and the lipid peroxidation were not observed however, exposure to both fields resulted in increased protein carbonylation. After exposure to EMF a significant inhibition of acetylcholinesterase activity was observed. As the present study for the first time revealed the oxidative damage and neurotoxicity in marine invertebrate after exposure to artificial magnetic fields, the need for further research is highlighted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMarine Environmental ResearchSame topicOcean Acidification Effects and ResponsesFrench-language works237,207