MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403896931 · doi:10.53555/sfs.v11i4.3110

Comparative Study of Toxins and Heavy Metals Levels Detected in The Gills Tissue and Sediments of Gills from Marine and Freshwater Fishes

2024· article· en· W4403896931 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Harsh Mudliar, Ayushi Singh, Dinesh Kumar Saroj, Meghana B. Talpade

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Survey in Fisheries Sciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGillHeavy metalsBiologyFisheryZoologyEcologyEnvironmental chemistryFish <Actinopterygii>Chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The marine and freshwater ecology has been greatly impacted by the increased water pollution seen in aquatic life. Water pollutants greatly affect the fish's anatomy and physiology. Heavy metals are one such water pollutant that shows detrimental effects on biotic life. This study aims to quantify the toxins in the gill deposition and tissue samples from two fish samples each from freshwater and marine water. Various toxins were analyzed, including phosphate, sulphate, and heavy metals such as Lead, Cobalt, Manganese, Iron, Copper, and Nickel. The study shows the presence of heavy metal in the gills which could lead to lesions and discolouration compared to healthy fish. The differences in species and water bodies indicate the varying concentrations of potential toxins and heavy metals in gills and the accumulation of these probable toxins in freshwater and marine fishes. It helps lay the groundwork for detecting possible pollutants in two water bodies and the high rise of toxicity in water. This study indicates that the quality of water in different water bodies and the fish consumed poses significant risks to human health, with potential risk of hazard looming, as fish could be considered environmental biomonitoring tools.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.168
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.155 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Survey in Fisheries SciencesSame topicMercury impact and mitigation studiesFrench-language works237,207