The effectiveness of several commercial antifouling treatments at reducing biofouling on finfish aquaculture cages in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biofouling in finfish aquaculture is an important issue because copper based antifoulants contribute to marine pollution and biofouling management incurs heavy costs to the industry. The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness five treatments (non-biocidal: Dyneema, Netpolish, Aquacoating and ThornD; biocidal using cuprous oxide: Netrex) as compared with an untreated nylon net. After 8 months, effectiveness was determined by quantifying changes in: per cent net occlusion, per cent cover of major fouling groups, and biomass. Only one non-biocidal treatment performed better than the control in one performance index (Dyneema had lower biomass), and overall, the copper treatment was most effective. The results from this study demonstrated that the effectiveness of copper treatments will continue to be a barrier to the implementation of non-biocidal antifoulants, and that more research is needed to develop effective, non-biocidal antifoulant coatings for aquaculture operations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".