MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4389125340 · doi:10.18066/inic0618.23

AVALIAÇÃO DA CONCENTRAÇÃO DE METAIS E TOXICIDADE AGUDA DO SEDIMENTO DO RIO DOCE UTILIZANDO HYALELLA AZTECA

2023· article· pt· W4389125340 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Macedo de Assis, Letícia Pacheco Ribeiro, Diego Lacerda, Higor Santos de Oliveira, Cristiane dos Santos Vergílio

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology
Canadian institutionsPontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyalella aztecaEnvironmental scienceBiologyEcologyAmphipodaCrustacean

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ResumoO rompimento da barragem de Fundão é considerado o maior desastre envolvendo barragens de rejeito no mundo.O rejeito liberado sofreu decantação para o sedimento de fundo, além de processos de transporte em direção à foz.Alguns eventos podem atuar na ressuspensão dos sedimentos ao longo do rio Doce no decorrer do tempo.Nesse cenário, estudos que monitorem a evolução dos impactos à longo prazo para a biota são de grande importância.O presente estudo avaliou a toxicidade do sedimento de diferentes pontos amostrais ao longo do rio Doce após cinco anos do rompimento da barragem de minério utilizando o bioindicador Hyalella azteca.O sedimento de Aimorés se destacou na acumulação de diversos metais (Pb, Ba, Al, Cu e Zn, Cr), sendo o único que gerou mortalidade significativa para os organismos.O ponto de ser coleta à montante da Usina Hidrelétrica de Aimorés (UHE), que retem o material transportado ao longo do rio Doce, pode ter influenciado nos resultados.Apesar da ausência de toxicidade aguda para os outros pontos, estudos à longo prazo são necessários devido a elevada concentração de metais nos pontos de coleta.

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)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same topicEnvironmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology→French-language works237,207→