MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998065777 · doi:10.2989/18142320609504192

Salmon mortalities associated with a bloom of<i>Alexandrium fundyense</i>in 2003 in the Bay of Fundy, and subsequent early warning approaches for industry

2006· article· en· W1998065777 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
JL Martin, MM LeGresley, K. Haya, DH Sephton, LE Burridge, FH Page, BD Chang

Bibliographic record

VenueAfrican Journal of Marine Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine Toxins and Detection Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayBloomFisheryAlgal bloomAquacultureBiologyShellfishSaxitoxinMytilusDinoflagellateGillParalytic shellfish poisoningRed tideAquatic animalOceanographyEcologyFish <Actinopterygii>PhytoplanktonToxin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In early September 2003, >3.0 × 105 cells l−1 of Alexandrium fundyense were detected in close proximity to salmon aquaculture sites near Grand Manan Island in the Bay of Fundy, eastern Canada. High concentrations persisted throughout the month, peaking to >8 × 105 cells l−1 on 18 September. Concurrently, some salmon farms in the area experienced elevated mortalities. Although the cause of mortality is not yet fully understood, it appears to be related to the high concentrations of A. fundyense. Paralytic shellfish poisoning toxins were not detected in the edible flesh of salmon (by mouse bioassay and high-performance liquid chromatography), but were detected at low levels in viscera and gills. Blue mussels Mytilus edulis analysed from areas affected by the bloom reached levels of 18 000μg STX equivalents 100g−1 of tissue. As a result of the salmon mortalities, a project was initiated to establish a monitoring approach for harmful algal blooms to provide an early warning of potential events and to act as a tool for mitigation actions. Keywords: ALEXANDRIUMBAY OF FUNDYPSPSALMON MORTALITIES

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)0.004
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations11
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAfrican Journal of Marine ScienceSame topicMarine Toxins and Detection MethodsFrench-language works237,207