MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998414778 · doi:10.1111/jwas.12834

Lethal and sublethal effects of the anti‐sea lice formulation Salmosan® on the Pacific spot prawn (<scp><i>Pandalus platyceros</i></scp>)

2021· article· en· W2998414778 on OpenAlexafffund
Kate Mill, Christopher J. Kennedy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the World Aquaculture Society · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersFisheries and Oceans Canada
KeywordsBiologyPrawnMoultingAnimal scienceFisheryShrimpMudaEcdysisAquacultureCrustaceanDecapodaZoologyFish <Actinopterygii>LarvaEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The effects of the aquaculture chemotherapeutant Salmosan® (active ingredient [a.i.]: azamethiphos) were examined in Pacific spot prawns ( Pandalus platyceros ) at three temperatures (5, 11, and 17°C). Post‐molt prawns were more sensitive to Salmosan® than intermolt prawns; repeated (3x) 1‐hr LC50 values for post‐molt prawns ranged from 17 (9.3–31 95% confident intervals) to 40 (25–63) μg/L a.i. while intermolt prawns survived 3 × 1‐hr exposures up to 100 μg/L a.i. Using LC50 values, Salmosan® was approximately 2.4 times more toxic at 17 versus 5°C. Temperature significantly altered chemosensory and locomotory behaviors in intermolt prawns with the highest activity at the intermediate temperature. Significant decreases in antennule flicking (84 and 104% over controls) were seen at 17°C after 3 × 1‐hr pulse exposures to 50 and 100 μg/L a.i., respectively. Temperature, but not Salmosan®, affected molting success: at 17°C significantly lower survival was seen during ecdysis (60% of those at 5°C) and at 5°C, molt time was longer (41 ± 3 days) compared to 11°C (34 ± 4 days) or 17°C (21 ± 4 days). Life stage (molt status) and environmental parameters (temperature) alter the effects of Salmosan® to non‐target spot prawns.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.732

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the World Aquaculture SocietySame topicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology ResearchFrench-language works237,207