Unveiling low-to-high-frequency data sampling caveats for aquaculture environmental monitoring and management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.073 | 0.165 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".