MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044950849 · doi:10.1080/08997659.2013.847871

Fish Processing Facilities: New Challenge to Marine Biosecurity in Canada

2013· article· en· W2044950849 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Michael H. H. Price, Alexandra Morton, J. G. Eriksson, John P. Volpe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aquatic Animal Health · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicZoonotic diseases and public health
Canadian institutionsRaincoast Conservation FoundationUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFisheries and Oceans CanadaRaincoast Conservation Foundation
KeywordsBiosecurityFish <Actinopterygii>BiologyFisheryZoologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The transmission of pathogens is a common consequence of animal food production. Marine salmon farms and their processing facilities can serve as sources of virulent fish pathogens; our study is the first to confirm the broadcast of a live fish pathogen from a farmed salmon processing facility into the marine waters of Canada's Pacific coast. We found live salmon lice Lepeophtheirus salmonis, mucus, and fish tissue in effluent from the processing facility. Sea lice transmitted from this source may pose a threat to wild salmon populations, and the release of untreated offal, including blood water, is of considerable concern. Further research is needed to quantify the extent to which processing facilities release sea lice and to determine whether more virulent fish pathogens are present in effluent. These data underscore the need for fish farming nations to develop mandatory biosecurity programs to ensure that farmed salmon processing facilities will prevent the broadcast of infectious fish pathogens into wild fish habitat.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.322

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Aquatic Animal HealthSame topicZoonotic diseases and public healthFrench-language works237,207