Assessing the potential toxicity of resuspended sediment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Two moderately contaminated freshwater sediments (Sorel Harbour, St. Lawrence River, Canada) were subjected to a suspension event. The objective was to assess the environmental impact of the disposal of dredged material in water, in particular, the short-term effects of dumping on the water column and the long-term effects of dredged sediment deposits. In a series of microcosms, the sediments were left to stand for 25 d under flow-through conditions (reference conditions). In a second series of microcosms, sediments were vigorously suspended for 15 min before being left to settle and were submitted to the same treatment as reference sediments during the following 25 d. Physicochemical and biological parameters (Daphnia magna and Hydra attenuata survival) were measured in overlying water throughout the experiment. Sediment toxicity was assessed with Chironomus tentans and Hyalella azteca exposed to sediments collected at both the beginning and end of the 25-d period. Pore-water toxicity was evaluated with D. magna. During the suspension process, in the Sorel Harbour mixed sediment overlying water, we observed effects on H. attenuata survival and ammonia and metals (chromium, copper, and zinc) releases. Meanwhile, in reference (nonmixed) and mixed sediments as well as in associated pore waters, there were no significant chemical modifications nor biological effects after the 25-d experiments. The developed approach, which attempts to simulate a dumping process, aims at allowing the assessment of the short- and long-term hazards resulting from a resuspension process in overlying water and in resettled sediments using both chemical and biological measurements.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".