Evaluating active genetic options for the control of sea lamprey (<i>Petromyzon marinus</i>) in the Laurentian Great Lakes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For more than two decades the Great Lakes Fishery Commission has sought tactics to complement, and potentially replace, the use of barriers and lampricides to control sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) in the Great Lakes, but thus far without success. This paper examines the potential of modern genetic technology to suppress these invasive populations. We identified six recombinant options that appeared to be moderately to highly feasible, most of which were judged by an expert panel as extremely low or low risk, and for which research and development was broadly supported by stakeholders. The two options judged to overall best combine high efficacy and low risks were a Mendelian “sex ratio drive” and genetically modifying a prey species combined with killing or sterilizing sea lamprey that fed on it. Core issues regarding use of genetic biocontrol in the Great Lakes include technical problems associated with maintaining a sea lamprey brood line, information gaps for most options, the extent of broader public support, and the extent and nature of national and international consultation required in making decisions about control options.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".