MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098613227

CONTAMINANT ACCUMULATION IN FORAGE FISH

2011· article· en· W7098613227 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicEthnobotanical and Medicinal Plants Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBaySculpinForage fishWildlifeMercury (programming language)MethylmercuryContaminationForageSea bass
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this component of the CISNET San Pablo Bay project was to contribute to the understanding of the ecological impacts of chemical stressors on wildlife species in San Pablo Bay. Ecologically important forage fish species were studied as an indicator of risks to predators in marsh, river, and Bay habitats. Chemical analysis of whole body fish was performed to obtain integrative measures of the degree of food web contamination in San Pablo Bay and to investigate the possible effects of this contamination on wildlife species. Mercury, selenium, PCBs, and DDT were detected in all of the habitats in which the two species were sampled. Concentrations of other contaminants were either well below known thresholds or not detectable. Average DDT (DDE + DDD) concentrations in striped bass (24 ppb wet) and sculpin (16 ppb wet) both exceeded a guideline of 14 ppb wet established by Environment Canada for protection of wildlife consumers of aquatic biota. Average mercury concentrations in striped bass (72 ppb wet) and sculpin (70 ppb wet) also both exceeded the 33 ppb wet guideline for methylmercury also established by Environment Canada for protection of fish predators. Selenium concentrations were all below the 3 ug/g dry threshold for effects on fish

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.131 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEthnobotanical and Medicinal Plants StudiesFrench-language works237,207