Evaluating the effect of synchronized sea lice treatments in Chile
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The sea louse is considered an important ectoparasite that affects farmed salmonids around the world. Sea lice control relies heavily on pharmacological treatments in several salmon-producing countries, including Chile. Among options for drug administration, immersion treatments represent the majority of antiparasitic control strategies used in Chile. As a topical procedure, immersion treatments do not induce a long lasting effect; therefore, re-infestation from neighbouring farms may undermine their efficacy. Synchronization of treatments has been proposed as a strategy to improve immersion treatment performance, but it has not been evaluated so far. Using a repeated-measures linear mixed-effect model, we evaluated the impact of treatment synchronization of neighbouring farms (within 10km seaway distance) on the adult lice mean abundance from weeks 2 to 8 post-treatment on rainbow trout and Atlantic salmon farms in Chile, while controlling for external and internal sources of lice before the treatments, and also for environmental and fish-related variables. Results indicate that treatment synchronization was significantly associated with lower adult lice levels from weeks 5 to 7 after treatment. This relationship appeared to be linear, suggesting that higher levels of synchronization may result in lower adult sea lice levels during these weeks. These findings suggest that synchronization can improve the performance of immersion delousing treatments by keeping sea lice levels low for a longer period of time. Our results may be applicable to other regions of the world where immersion treatments are widely used.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".