MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085040509 · doi:10.1890/12-0669.1

Ballast water regulations and the move toward concentration‐based numeric discharge limits

2012· article· en· W2085040509 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ryan Albert, John M. Lishman, Juhi R. Saxena

Bibliographic record

VenueEcological Applications · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine Ecology and Invasive Species
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAmerican Bureau of ShippingU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
KeywordsBallastScope (computer science)Environmental planningCoast guardEnvironmental scienceGovernment (linguistics)Guard (computer science)Agency (philosophy)BusinessEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental protectionEcologyComputer scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ballast water from shipping is a principal source for the introduction of nonindigenous species. As a result, numerous government bodies have adopted various ballast water management practices and discharge standards to slow or eliminate the future introduction and dispersal of these nonindigenous species. For researchers studying ballast water issues, understanding the regulatory framework is helpful to define the scope of research needed by policy makers to develop effective regulations. However, for most scientists, this information is difficult to obtain because it is outside the standard scientific literature and often difficult to interpret. This paper provides a brief review of the regulatory framework directed toward scientists studying ballast water and aquatic invasive species issues. We describe different approaches to ballast water management in international, U.S. federal and state, and domestic ballast water regulation. Specifically, we discuss standards established by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and individual states in the United States including California, New York, and Minnesota. Additionally, outside the United States, countries such as Australia, Canada, and New Zealand have well-established domestic ballast water regulatory regimes. Different approaches to regulation have recently resulted in variations between numeric concentration-based ballast water discharge limits, particularly in the United States, as well as reliance on use of ballast water exchange pending development and adoption of rigorous science-based discharge standards. To date, numeric concentration-based discharge limits have not generally been based upon a thorough application of risk-assessment methodologies. Regulators, making decisions based on the available information and methodologies before them, have consequently established varying standards, or not established standards at all. The review and refinement of ballast water discharge standards by regulatory agencies will benefit from activity by the scientific community to improve and develop more precise risk-assessment methodologies.

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)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.015
Scholarly communication0.0090.009
Open science0.0070.006
Research integrity0.0080.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations83
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcological ApplicationsSame topicMarine Ecology and Invasive SpeciesFrench-language works237,207