Filtration of sea louse, <i><scp>L</scp>epeophtheirus salmonis</i>, copepodids by the blue mussel, <i><scp>M</scp>ytilus edulis</i>, and the <scp>A</scp>tlantic sea scallop, <i><scp>P</scp>lacopecten magellanicus</i>, under different flow, light and copepodid‐density regimes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Population management of Lepeophtheirus salmonis in Canada currently relies on chemotherapeutants to remove attached stages of the ectoparasite. However, some populations of L. salmonis are developing resistance to chemotherapeutants making alternate management measures necessary. This article explores the ability of filter-feeding shellfish [i.e. blue mussels (Mytilus edulis) and Atlantic sea scallops (Placopecten magellanicus)] to consume the copepodid stages of L. salmonis in the laboratory under static and flowing water conditions, with variable copepodid densities, and with the aid of a light attractant. Mytilus edulis consumed copepodids under both static and flowing water conditions, and the proportion of individuals ingested was similar at low and high copepodid densities, suggesting that M. edulis was not saturated at the concentrations tested. Also, M. edulis consumed more copepodids when a light attractant was present, suggesting that lights may be useful to concentrate widely dispersed copepodids around cultured shellfish in the field. Finally, P. magellanicus consumed the same number of copepodids as an equivalent total wet weight of M. edulis. During each of the four separate experiments, shellfish consumed between 18 and 38% of the copepodids presented per hour, suggesting that both species are well suited for low level removal of copepodids over time.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".