MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028068726 · doi:10.3354/dao046231

Estimated prevalence of Aerococcus viridans and Anophryoides haemophila in American lobsters Homarus americanus freshly captured in the waters of Prince Edward Island, Canada

2001· article· en· W2028068726 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jean Lavallée, K. Larry Hammell, E. W. Spangler, RJ Cawthorn

Bibliographic record

VenueDiseases of Aquatic Organisms · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCrustacean biology and ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomarusAmerican lobsterBiologyFisheryDecapodaFishingCrustacean

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian lobster industry holds lobsters Homarus americanus in captivity for various periods to supply markets with live product year-round. Mortality during holding results in considerable losses, estimated at 10 to 15 % yr(-1) by the industry. This study examined the prevalence of Anophryoides haemophila and Aerococcus viridans, causative agents of 'bumper car' disease and gaffkemia, respectively, in lobsters freshly captured in the waters of Prince Edward Island during the spring and fall fishing seasons of 1997. A total of 116 lobsters were sampled in the spring, and 138 in the fall. A. haemophila was not detected in the spring, while the prevalence was 0.72 % in the fall with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.02 to 3.97% and an overall prevalence of 0.39% (95% CI: 0.01 to 2.17%). The prevalence of A. viridans was estimated at 6.9% (95% CI: 3.0 to 13.14%) in the spring, 5.8% in the fall (95% CI: 2.54 to 11.10%), and 6.30% overall (95% CI: 3.64 to 10.03%). Because of the reduced interest in food of diseased lobsters, and compromised metabolism in the case of gaffkemia, these prevalence estimates are likely underestimates of the true prevalence of gaffkemia and 'bumper car' disease in the wild populations of lobster around Prince Edward Island.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score0.809

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations35
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiseases of Aquatic OrganismsSame topicCrustacean biology and ecologyFrench-language works237,207