MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392292682 · doi:10.3389/fmars.2024.1334286

Biological testing of ships’ ballast water indicates challenges for the implementation of the Ballast Water Management Convention

2024· article· en· W4392292682 on OpenAlexafffund
Okko Outinen, Sarah A. Bailey, Oscar Casas‐Monroy, Stephanie Delacroix, Sonia Gorgula, Evelina Grinienė, Jenni Kakkonen, Greta Srėbalienė

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Marine Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine Ecology and Invasive Species
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersFisheries and Oceans CanadaInternational Council for the Exploration of the SeaTransport Canada
KeywordsBallastMarine engineeringEnvironmental scienceConventionEnvironmental resource managementBusinessFisheryOceanographyEngineeringGeologyBiologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ships’ ballast water and sediments are vectors that contribute to the unintentional spread of aquatic non-native species globally. Ballast water management, as well as commissioning testing of ballast water management systems and compliance monitoring under the regulations of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) aim at minimizing the unwanted spread of organisms. This study compiles data for treated ballast water samples collected and analyzed from 228 ships during 2017–2023. The samples were collected from the ballast discharge line or directly from the ballast tank for enumeration of living organism concentrations in the categories of ≥50µm and <50 to ≥10µm -sized organisms, as well as indicator microbes in comparison to the ballast water performance standard of the IMO (Regulation D-2). In addition, several ship-specific factors were examined to infer potential factors affecting compliance rates. Nearly all ships were compliant with the ballast water performance standard for indicator microbes and <50 to ≥10µm -sized organisms, whereas almost half of all samples exceeded the limit of ten viable organisms m -3 for the ≥50µm -sized organisms. Compliance testing results did not differ significantly between sampling years, indicating that compliance rate did not change through time. The rate of compliance was higher for commissioning testing than compliance testing. Clear ship- or system-specific factors that lead to compliance or non-compliance were not detected, even though type of ballast water management system, filter mesh size associated with the system and source of ballast water affected compliance significantly either for the samples taken from the discharge line, or ballast tank. As compliance did not improve significantly over time, compliance testing of ships’ ballast water should be undertaken to ensure that the systems remain operational after commissioning and ships meet requirements of the D-2 standard. Furthermore, the study outcomes promote further research on the efficiency of filter mesh sizes and different filtration units associated with ballast water management systems, to improve mechanical removal of larger organisms. Finally, as several ships exceeded the compliance limit by hundreds or thousands of living organisms, technological advancements and operational measures may be needed to improve the overall reliability of ballast water management.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.885

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations29
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Marine ScienceSame topicMarine Ecology and Invasive SpeciesFrench-language works237,207