MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3005998138 · doi:10.1109/iotm.0001.1900033

Precision Aquaculture

2019· article· en· W3005998138 on OpenAlexaffabout
Fearghal O’Donncha, Jon Grant

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Internet of Things Magazine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality Monitoring Technologies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAquacultureStandardizationInteroperabilityInternet of ThingsWork (physics)Computer scienceCloud computingBusinessEnvironmental resource managementData scienceFish <Actinopterygii>EngineeringEnvironmental scienceFisheryWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Precision aquaculture is founded on a set of disparate, interconnected sensors deployed within the marine environment to monitor, analyze, interpret, and provide decision support for farm operations. Recent technological innovations facilitate aquaculture becoming part of the Internet of Things (IoT) - modern farms are characterized by hundreds of interconnected sensors that store and serve data, interact with other sensors and devices, and connect with a fog and cloud ecosystem. We describe the implementation of the precision aquaculture concept to a number of farms in eastern Canada. The work combines partners from industry, technology, and academia to provide data-driven insight and decision that promotes ecologically sustainable intensification of aquaculture. The article presents a first case study on how IoT can instrument, inform, and impact the aquaculture industry. Challenges related to connectivity, interoperability, and standardization are discussed, and we elucidate how our experiences can inform future activities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.012

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations101
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Internet of Things MagazineSame topicWater Quality Monitoring TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207