MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098882918

www.mdpi.com/journal/ijms Biofouling Growth in Cold Estuarine Waters and Evaluation of Some Chitosan and Copper Anti-Fouling Paints

2009· article· en· W7098882918 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicArtificial Immune Systems Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiofoulingBiocideSeawaterAlgaeBiomass (ecology)EstuaryCopper
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Ecological concerns about antifouling paints containing non-green tin and copper compounds have highlighted the need for environmentally friendly alternatives. We report here a field test conducted in estuarine waters over two months designed to evaluate the efficiency of a number of active natural and man-made chemical ingredients added into a silicon-polyurethane marine pa int. Early steps of biofouling in cold seawater of th e St. Lawrence Estuary (Canada) were observed. Analyses, including dry biom ass, flow cytometry and spectrofluorim etry, dem onstrated a short-term antibacterial actio n of chitosan-based paints although no significant anti-algal action was observed. Cuprous oxide paints were efficient against bacteria and algae invasion in the f irst two w eeks, especially those with added organic biocides such as isothiazolone and copper pyrithione. However, the overall dry biomass and chlorophyll a content were similar for all chitosanand copper-based paints after 63 days. Microsc opic observations reveal ed variation in the highly diverse benthic diatom population including species Navicula, Melosira, Cocconeis, Nitshzcia, Fragilaria and Amphora. Results suggest no real long-term efficiency for tested antifouling paints and highlight a particular need for green an tifouling ingredients that are active under northern estuarine conditions.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.007

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArtificial Immune Systems ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207