MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414378815 · doi:10.1093/etojnl/vgaf230

Incorporation of metal speciation data into QICAR models and application to data-poor technology-critical elements

2025· article· en· W4414378815 on OpenAlexaff
Séverine Le Faucheur, Jelle Mertens, Eric van Genderen, Amiel Boullemant, Claude Fortin, Peter G. C. Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Toxicology and Chemistry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality and Pollution Assessment
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenetic algorithmMetalIonic bondingMetal ions in aqueous solutionIonMetal toxicityLinear regressionEC50

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a previous article, we developed quantitative ion character-activity relationships (QICARs) to relate the intrinsic properties of a metal to its acute toxicity towards freshwater aquatic organisms. These predictive tools were developed for a set of data-rich training elements and then applied to a representative selection of technology-critical elements (TCEs). The toxicity of the TCEs was reasonably well predicted, with most values located within the 95% prediction intervals. In this work, we have extended this approach to use the calculated metal speciation. Linear free energy relationships were used to estimate some of the needed thermodynamic constants. Using this information, we expressed the concentration resulting in a 50% effect level value as free metal activities and performed regression analyses. For the training metals, the determination coefficients slightly increased compared with those obtained using the total dissolved metal. As before, the log-transformed composite value of the covalent index (χm2r) was the best predictor of their acute toxicity towards algae and daphnids (χm = metal's electronegativity; r = ionic radius). However, for the TCEs, the regressions were much poorer, particularly when the predicted free metal ion concentrations were very low (e.g., < 10-18 M). We suggest that this result reflects the distinctive speciation of these metals, where (i) the free metal ion is present only at vanishingly low concentrations (the calculation of which is problematic) and (ii) in all but one case (Au(CN)2-), the metal's calculated speciation is dominated by neutral polyhydroxo species (e.g., Au(OH)30, Ge(OH)40…). In our view, this result does not undermine the use of QICARs. Rather, the use of QICARs revealed that free-ion activity could be inadequate for predicting the toxicity of the studied data-poor metals.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Toxicology and ChemistrySame topicWater Quality and Pollution AssessmentFrench-language works237,207