Environmental indicators in salmon aquaculture research: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The ecosystem approach to aquaculture (EAA) is a strategy for the sustainable development of the aquaculture sector, but the question of how it can be practically implemented remains unclear. Indicators that can be applied at relevant scales of impact and that reflect the environmental status and change offer a means of operationalizing EAA. Therefore, a systematic literature review was carried out to identify environmental indicators referenced in salmon aquaculture literature and review their potential to support EAA. Using the PRISMA method for selecting journal papers, 101 articles that included 531 indicators were reviewed. Indicators were characterized based on the effect of aquaculture they measure, their similarity to other indicators extracted, and the scale at which they were applied. Indicators and their characteristics are presented in a searchable online database. A scoring method for evaluating indicators based on criteria drawn from environmental indicator literature and the potential scalability of indicators to meet the needs of EAA was developed and applied to the most frequently referenced indicators. Overall, near‐field indicators of benthic impacts dominated salmon aquaculture literature. Of the most frequently referenced indicators, those that scored highest based on criteria drawn from environmental indicator literature also scored highest on scalability and therefore their potential contribution to EAA. Overall, results suggest that additional research and application of far‐field environmental indicators in salmon aquaculture will be required to identify a suite of indicators that can be applied as part of EAA practice.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".