Follow-up Studies Addressing Questions Identified During Cycle 1 of the Adult Fish Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian federal government instituted an environment effects monitor-ing (EEM) program for the pulp and paper industry to ensure the long-term integrity of fish populations below the discharge of mill effluents. The pro-gram is cyclical in nature (every three to four years) and one of the components of the program is an adult fish survey which monitors wild fish health in the receiving environments. Cycle 1 reports were submitted in April of 1996, and the report for the James Maclaren Inc. mill at Thurso, Quebec, suggested some responses were evident in fish downstream of the mill discharge. However, the receiving environment was subject to inputs from other potential sources or confounding factors such as farm runoff, storm sewers, municipal discharges and upstream paper mills. A review of other Cycle 1 studies also identified a number of problems encountered during the adult fish surveys. At this time, Maclaren researchers and Environment Canada set up a collaborative research project as part of their Cycle 2 studies at the Thurso site. Objectives of the study included a comparison of Cycle 2 results to their Cycle 1 studies, an assessment
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 | 0.020 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".