MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097786538 · doi:10.1139/f02-090

Modeling ships' ballast water as invasion threats to the Great Lakes

2002· article· en· W2097786538 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Hugh J. MacIsaac, Thomas C Robbins, Mark A. Lewis

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine Ecology and Invasive Species
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBallastPropagule pressurePropaguleEnvironmental scienceHabitatInvasive speciesOceanographyEcologyFisheryIntroduced speciesEcosystemBiological dispersalBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The spread of nonindigenous species (NIS) in aquatic ecosystems provides an opportunity to develop new perspectives on the invasion process. In this paper we review existing invasion models, most of which were developed to describe invasions of terrestrial habitats, and propose an alternative that explores long-distance invasions mediated by discharge of contaminated ballast water by ships inbound to the Great Lakes. Based on current knowledge of shipping traffic to the Great Lakes, our model predicts that mid-ocean exchange of ballast water lowers propagule delivery by approximately three to four orders of magnitude relative to unexchanged ballast water. Propagule pressure of individual ships that enter the Great Lakes loaded with cargo and that declare "no ballast on board" (NOBOB) is typically one to two orders of magnitude higher than that of vessels that exchange ballast. Because NOBOB vessels dominate (~90%) inbound traffic into the Great Lakes, these vessels collectively appear to pose the greatest risk of new introductions, even though their individual risks are low.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations109
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicMarine Ecology and Invasive SpeciesFrench-language works237,207