Is there a conflict between cetacean conservation and marine renewable-energy developments?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is currently an unprecedented expansion of marine renewable-energy developments, particularly in UK waters. Marine renewable-energy plants are also being developed in many other countries across Europe and in the wider world, including in the USA, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Large-scale developments, in UK waters, covering thousands of square kilometres are now planned; however, data on the likely impact of this expansion on the 28 cetacean species found in UK waters are lacking, or at best limited. However, the available information, including inferences drawn from the impact of other human activities in the marine environment, indicates a significant risk of negative consequences, with the noise from pile driving highlighted as a major concern. The marine renewable-energy industry will also deploy some novel technologies, such as large submerged turbines, with unknown consequences for marine wildlife. Further research is urgently required, including distributional and behavioural studies, to establish baselines against which any changes may be measured. Precautionary actions, particularly with respect to pile driving, are advocated to minimise impacts on cetaceans.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 it