Fish Disease and Biosecurity: Attitudes, Beliefs, and Perceptions of Managers and Owners of Commercial Finfish Recirculating Facilities in the United States and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In recirculation finfish facilities in the United States and Canada, biosecurity utilization is neither consistent nor uniform. Seeking reasons for this situation, we examined the beliefs, perceptions, and attitudes of managers and owners of such facilities about fish disease and biosecurity utilization. A questionnaire was mailed in the fall of 2001 to the managers and owners of 152 finfish-rearing recirculation facilities in the United States and Canada to gather information on their attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions regarding fish disease and biosecurity. The response rate to the survey was 86%. This paper reports on a subset of the overall responses, the responses of managers and owners who identified their facility as a business operation. Although respondents had a positive attitude towards biosecurity utilization, they had different beliefs about which disease types were of greatest concern for their farm. Respondents also had differing perceptions on the risk of disease transmission associated with different activities on their farms. In addition, respondents had various beliefs about the practicality and effectiveness of different biosecurity measures and why the practice of biosecurity was important to their farms. This study gives quantitative evidence that different fish farmers perceive disease and the practice of biosecurity differently. This study indicates that recognition of the human dimensions element is an important first step in the creation of biosecurity policies, strategies, and procedures that will be readily accepted and implemented and consistently applied by fish farmers on their farms. The findings challenge the heretofore traditionally accepted belief that poor biosecurity practice on a farm is primarily related to lack of knowledge about biosecurity.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".