MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6929631010 · doi:10.5061/dryad.7h44j0zvd

Raw data of eDNA quantities from an experimental study testing temperature, water masses, and fish species

2021· dataset· en· W6929631010 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2021
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicrobial Inactivation Methods
Canadian institutionsMinistère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts (Québec)Université Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbiotic componentEnvironmental DNAAquatic ecosystemFish <Actinopterygii>Aquatic scienceHydrobiologyAquatic environment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Environmental DNA (eDNA) is a very promising approach to facilitate and improve the aquatic species monitoring, which is crucial for their management and conservation. In comparison with the plethora of monitoring studies in the fields, relatively few studies have focused on experimentally investigating the “ecology” of eDNA, in particular pertaining to processes influencing the detection of eDNA. The paucity of knowledge about its ecology hampers the use of eDNA analysis to its full potential. In this study, we experimentally evaluated the impact of several biotic and abiotic factors on the rate of production and degradation of eDNA. Individuals of three freshwater fish species (brown bullhead, tench, and yellow perch) with distinct ecology were placed in two types of water from the St. Lawrence River (Québec, Canada) with very distinct physicochemical characteristics and at three different temperatures. Water samples were then filtered at predetermined time intervals, and quantitative PCR was used to quantify the eDNA in each sample. We found that temperature, species, water types, and some interactions between these factors had a strong effect on the production and degradation of eDNA. The results of this study enhance our knowledge about the ecology of eDNA, thus improving eDNA data interpretation.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.410
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 science0.0010.002
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 head0.150
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicMicrobial Inactivation MethodsFrench-language works237,207