MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3175939965 · doi:10.1016/j.aqrep.2021.100764

Unveiling low-to-high-frequency data sampling caveats for aquaculture environmental monitoring and management

2021· article· en· W3175939965 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAquaculture Reports · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality Monitoring Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
FundersBanco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econômico e SocialConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoMinistério da Agricultura, Pecuária e AbastecimentoEmpresa Brasileira de Pesquisa AgropecuáriaFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceAquacultureSampling (signal processing)Context (archaeology)Water qualityTurbidityEnvironmental monitoringSustainabilityHydrology (agriculture)Remote sensingFisheryFish <Actinopterygii>Environmental engineeringEcologyComputer scienceGeographyTelecommunicationsBiologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aiming at the sustainability of aquaculture production, producers should adopt tools and protocols for environmental monitoring and management of these enterprises. There are currently issues concerning the efficacy of data collection procedures and limnological sampling at low frequency, which is widely used by managers and aquaculture surveillance agencies. In this context, the present study evaluated the effectiveness of high-frequency (HF) and low-frequency (LF) limnological monitoring. For the HF, autonomous data collection platforms (ADCP) were installed in a tropical reservoir, four ADCP in areas with fish production (WFP), and one ADCP in an area free of fish production (FFP, control). For both sampling methods, the temperature (Temp), pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), turbidity (Tbt), electrical conductivity (EC), and chlorophyll-a (Chl-a) were sampled at a depth of 1.5 m from the water surface. While the HF used a multiparameter probe, recording each parameter every 10 min, the LF method consisted of monthly data acquisitions of the same settings using water sampling techniques for further measurement in the laboratory. The comparison of the sampling frequency and methods revealed different profiles for all measured parameters during the monitored period. The average values of the daily amplitude of variation differed between the two monitoring strategies for water temperature, pH, DO, Tbt, and Chl-a. Comparison of the results showed that the HF limnological monitoring allowed us to create a more accurate variation profile of the water quality variables measured. The ADCP is a useful strategy that can be used to capture the influences of fish production and to bring essential water quality changes for fish management. The evaluations with LF did not demonstrate the natural variability of the measured parameters, being an ineffective tool for environmental monitoring of fish production.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.292
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