Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sea lice Lepeophtheirus salmonis (Krøyer) are a major ectoparasite affecting farmed Atlantic salmon in most major salmon producing regions. Substantial resources are applied to sea lice control and the development of new technologies towards this end. Identifying and understanding how sea lice population patterns vary among cages on a salmon farm can be an important step in the design and analysis of any sea lice control strategy. Norway's intense monitoring efforts have provided salmon farmers and researchers with a wealth of sea lice infestation data. A frequently registered parameter is the number of adult female sea lice per cage. These time-series data can be analysed descriptively, the similarity between time-series quantified, so that groups and patterns can be identified among cages, using clustering algorithms capable of handling such dynamic data. We apply such algorithms to investigate the pattern of female sea lice counts among cages for three Atlantic salmon farms in Norway. A series of strategies involving a combination of distance measures and prototypes were explored and cluster evaluation was performed using cluster validity indices. Repeated agreement on cluster membership for different combinations of distance and centroids was taken to be a strong indicator of clustering while the stability of these results reinforced this likelihood. Though drivers behind clustering are not thoroughly investigated here, it appeared that fish weight at time of stocking and other management practices were strongly related to cluster membership. In addition to these internally driven factors it is also possible that external sources of infestation may drive patterns of sea lice infestation in groups of cages; for example, those most proximal to an external source. This exploratory method proved useful as a pattern discovery tool for cages in salmon farms.
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 | 0.000 | 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".