MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1823418783

Regional Review on Status and Trends in Aquaculture Development in North America: Canada and the United States of America — 2010

2012· article· en· W1823418783 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
P. G. Olin, James Smith, Rashed Nabi

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship (California Digital Library) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAquaculture Nutrition and Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFisheries and Oceans Canada
KeywordsAquacultureAgricultural economicsBusinessProduction (economics)FisheryValue (mathematics)GeographyNatural resource economicsEnvironmental protectionFish <Actinopterygii>EconomicsBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aquaculture industry in North America produced 644 213 tonnes of product in 2008 with an estimated value of US$1.6 billion. This represents an annual percentage increase over the previous decade of 1.8 percent by volume and 4.5 percent in value. The finfish industry is at the forefront of the aquaculture sector, led by production of Atlantic salmon in Canada and channel catfish in the United States of America.There is potential for significant increases in North American production and both the Canadian and United States governments have projections for expansion of their aquaculture industries. Canada estimates that by 2020 production in Canada could exceed 308 000 tonnes with a farmgate value of US$1.6 billion. The United States Department of Commerce estimates that domestic aquaculture production in the United States of America has the potential to increase in value from US$1 billion to more than US$3 billion by 2025. Future significant growth in the North American aquaculture industry will require policies and regulations that protect the environment while ensuring the economic viability of the sector in an increasingly competitive international arena.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.517
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.185 · 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.

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

Citations12
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship (California Digital Library)Same topicAquaculture Nutrition and GrowthFrench-language works237,207