MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7034691236

Use of green sea urchins (Stroglocentrotus droebachiensis) as a biocontrol for fouling on aquaculture net pens in British Columbia

2008· article· en· W7034691236 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueWestern CEDAR (Western Washington University) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAquacultureBiofoulingFoulingBiological pest controlInvertebrate
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biofouling in the aquaculture industry is an expensive problem, requiring toxic chemical treatments and manual cleaning. It is a problem that negatively impacts fish by occluding net openings, thereby reducing water flow and stressing stocks, as well as physically damaging nets. However, many invertebrates feed on and remove sessile fouling organisms from substrata. Biocontrol aims to add these natural grazers to aquaculture systems to control fouling. Ideally the biocontrol is also exploited so that the method becomes a form of polyculture. This study aims to determine the feasibility of using green sea urchins (Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis) as a biocontrol in sablefish net pens. The experiment involved immersing sample nets at several depths with varying urchin densities. The efficacy of urchins as biocontrols was measured using dry-weight, and remote sensing techniques were used to determine percent net occlusion. The results will be used to determine optimal carrying capacity, as well as minimum and maximum densities for the use of green sea urchins as biocontrols on net pens at commercial scales.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.877
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWestern CEDAR (Western Washington University)→Same topicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies→French-language works237,207→