RAP Progress in the Rochester Embayment of Lake Ontario: Population Monitoring, Trophic Relationships, and Levels of Bioaccumulative Chemicals of Concern in Mink, a Sentinel Species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the 1980s the binational (Canada, U.S.) International Joint Commission (IJC) \nbegan the process of creating and implementing remedial action plans (RAPs) in 43 \ncontaminated areas of concern (AOCs) throughout the Great Lakes Basin. The IJC \nestablished 14 “use impairments” that could cause a local area to be “listed” as an AOC, \nincluding “degradation of fish and wildlife populations” and “bird or animal deformities \nor reproductive problems.” In 1988, Foley et al. reported that fish in Lake Ontario and \nthe Genesee River had PCB concentrations within the range shown to cause reproductive \nfailure in captive mink. This evidence, coupled with the perceived absence of mink \nwithin 2 miles of the lake, led to the inclusion of these two use impairments in the RAP \n(1993, 1997). This study (Haynes et al. 2002) was designed to determine if populations \nof mink on the shore of the Rochester Embayment of Lake Ontario (RELO) are \nnegatively impacted by bioaccumulative chemicals of concern (BCCs) and, if so, whether \nthe BCCs are originating in the Embayment watershed or elsewhere. The AOC includes \nthe Embayment, a 35 square mile portion of Lake Ontario south of a line between Bogus \nPoint in the town of Parma and Nine Mile Point in the town of Webster (both in Monroe \nCounty, New York); adjacent wetlands and bays; and the six mile reach of the Genesee \nRiver, from the Lower Falls to the mouth at Lake Ontario (Figure 1). The RAP also \nincludes the sub-watersheds of Salmon Creek (western sub-basin), the Genesee River, \nand Irondequoit Creek (central sub-basin).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".