Impacts of exposure to oil sands-derived contaminants on the white sucker (Catostomus commersonii)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid expansion and scale of development associated with the Athabasca oil sands\nindustry has generated concerns regarding potential contamination of the surrounding watershed\nfrom industry-derived contaminants. While research to date has demonstrated pathways of\nexposure through atmospheric deposition and reclamation of oil sands process water, our\nunderstanding of how fish in the Athabasca watershed are impacted by these activities are not as\nwell understood. The objective of this dissertation was to determine whether population\nperformance of fishes in the Athabasca watershed have the potential to be impacted by oil sands\ndevelopment. This was assessed by evaluating the impacts of a proposed tailings reclamation\nstrategy (i.e., the creation of end pit lakes) on fish population performance, and by evaluating the\ncurrent performance of fish in the Athabasca River. White Sucker were selected as the model\norganism for this work based on their regional availability, spawning period, size, and role as a\nsentinel species in effects-based monitoring programs. Population performance was evaluated\nusing effects-based indicators of growth, energy storage and reproductive performance in adult\nfish, as well as survival and rates of deformity in early life stages. Effects were then interpreted\nin relation to biochemical and chemical indicators of contaminant exposure. Potential estrogenic\nand androgenic effects were evaluated using a recombinant yeast assay.\nWhite Sucker in the Athabasca watershed exhibit effects consistent with metabolic\ndisruption. Biochemical endpoints suggest exposure to atmospherically derived polycyclic\naromatic hydrocarbons may be a contributing factor to these effects. Naphthenic acids were\ndetected in the Athabasca watershed at concentrations below thresholds known to cause impacts\non growth or reproduction. Water samples collected from the watershed showed no evidence of\n(anti-) estrogenic or (anti-) androgenic activity at ecologically relevant concentrations, and no\nimpacts on survival, or rates of deformity in early life stages of White Sucker exposed to this\nmaterial were evident.
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".