Invasive Asian Carps in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<em>Abstract</em>.—There are four species collectively known as the Asian carps: grass carp <em>Ctenopharyngodon idella</em>, bighead carp <em>Hypophthalmichthys nobilis</em>, silver carp <em>H. molitrix</em>, and black carp <em>Mylopharyngodon piceus</em>. These species have been introduced worldwide for aquaculture purposes. Subsequent to introduction into the southern United States, three species have become well-established in the wild (grass, bighead, and silver carps). Two of these species, bighead and silver carps, have been dispersing rapidly up the Mississippi River basin, wreaking ecological havoc along the way. As there are numerous connections between the Mississippi basin and Canadian watersheds, including the Great Lakes, there is considerable concern about their potential ecological impacts if introduced and established in Canada. In addition to natural dispersal, these species may also be introduced into the Canadian wild through the live food fish trade. In 2004, the Canadian federal department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada conducted a risk assessment to determine the ecological risk of Asian carps to Canada. This assessment included evaluating the risk of survival, reproduction and spread of these species, as well as their pathogens, parasites, or fellow travelers (e.g. other invasive species), should they be introduced into Canada. These components were assessed in an expert workshop using best available information on their biology, potential vectors of introduction, and impacts in both native and introduced ranges. The assessment concluded that the risk of impact was high in, at least, some parts of Canada, including the southern Great Lakes basin by all four Asian carp species.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".