MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413152094 · doi:10.53607/wrb.v43.268

Survey of blood lead levels in trumpeter swans (Cygnus buccinator) in Ontario, Canada

2025· article· en· W4413152094 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sherri Cox

Bibliographic record

VenueWildlife Rehabilitation Bulletin · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsBlack swan theoryGeographyLead (geology)FisheryOceanographyZoologyBiologyGeologyPaleontologyStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lead toxicosis in waterfowl has been well documented for a century, with the majority of studies analysed from carcasses of dead birds. Lead can remain in the environment for decades; the sublethal effects of lead remain unknown in the once extirpated trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator) population in Ontario, Canada. The purpose of this study was to survey healthy, free-ranging trumpeter swans in Ontario to determine blood lead levels. Blood samples from 95 trumpeter swans in Ontario, Canada, revealed lead levels above 3.2 µg/dL in 90% of the birds, with 30% of the swans having blood lead levels exceeding 15 µg/dL. Furthermore, 11 birds from the population were admitted to wildlife rehabilitation centres with suspected lead toxicosis, with blood lead levels as low as 13.5 µg/dL. Three of the 11 birds were chelated for lead toxicosis, whilst the remaining eight received supportive care. These data show that lead toxicosis, even at low blood lead levels, could be a concern for the health and welfare of trumpeter swans in Ontario and for the potentially damaging ecological effects of lead ingestion by other animals. The long-term effects on the health of swans sampled in this study remain unknown.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.240
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWildlife Rehabilitation BulletinSame topicMercury impact and mitigation studiesFrench-language works237,207