MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993472305 · doi:10.1139/s03-014

Dispersion of discharged ship ballast water in Vancouver Harbour, Juan De Fuca Strait, and offshore of the Washington Coast

2003· article· en· W1993472305 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Max R Larson, Michael Foreman, Colin D. Levings, Michael R. Tarbotton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Engineering and Science · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine Ecology and Invasive Species
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFisheries and Oceans Canada
KeywordsBallastHarbourOceanographySubmarine pipelineShoreEstuaryCurrent (fluid)HabitatGeologyEnvironmental scienceFisheryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The dispersion of harmful nonindigenous biological organisms that may be present in discharged ship ballast water is an issue of international interest. The present paper examines this issue as it applies to Vancouver Harbour and Juan de Fuca Strait, British Columbia, and the adjacent U.S. waters. The objective is to determine whether potential mechanisms exist to transport viable organisms that might be present in discharged ballast water to favourable reproductive habitats within British Columbian coastal waters. The study applied three-dimensional harmonic finite element models to generate representative tidal, atmospheric, and density-driven flow fields. Particle-tracking techniques were used to simulate representative trajectories of passive and active ballast water organisms discharged at existing deballasting sites. It was determined that the safest deballasting sites are off the west coast. Under normal conditions, organisms move southward (summer) or northward (winter) in the Shelf Break Current and only under strong eastward or northward winds are they transported to the Washington or Vancouver Island shorelines. Key words: ship ballast water, discharge, microorganism, trajectory, Vancouver Harbour, West Coast.

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)0.001
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 score0.446
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.162
Teacher spread0.158 · 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

Citations13
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Engineering and ScienceSame topicMarine Ecology and Invasive SpeciesFrench-language works237,207