Cullen, J.J., 2019. The best available science supports most probable number (MPN) testing methods for type approval of ballast water management systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The Vessel Incidental Discharge Act of 2018 (VIDA) became law on December 4, 2018, instructing the United States Coast Guard (USCG), in coordination with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, to publish a draft policy letter, based on the best available science, describing ballast water management system (BWMS) type-approval testing methods that may be used to measure the concentration of organisms in ballast water that are capable of reproduction. The USCG was required to take into consideration a testing method that uses organism grow-out and most probable number (MPN) statistical analysis. The MPN Dilution Culture + Motility (MPN+M) type-approval testing methodology fits this description: with the U.S. delegation in agreement, MPN+M was approved by the International Maritime Organization for use in type approval of BWMS. Yet, the USCG draft policy letter stated that “the Coast Guard does not know of any type-approval testing protocols for BWMS that render nonviable organisms in ballast water that are based on best available science”, and the letter does not even mention MPN. Highly qualified commenters, each providing supporting documentation, challenged the Coast Guard’s dismissal of MPN, recommending instead that the USCG include an MPN+M protocol in its final policy letter, due on December 4, 2019. A review of the best available science — documented experience, relevant data and peer-reviewed publications, all on the public record — strongly supports the case for MPN+M as a type-approval testing method. The science shows that MPN+M is suitable for testing all BWMS treatment technologies and that it assesses permanent loss of viability. The method has been validated to a higher standard than the USCG-accepted FDA/CMFDA + Motility method and performance metrics show that it provides equivalent or better enforcement of type-approval discharge standards. The best available science supports USCG acceptance of the MPN+M methodology as described in a protocol submitted to them by one of their accepted Independent Laboratories.
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 | 0.013 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.076 | 0.062 |
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".