MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7133270669

The Risk of Introducing Live Organisms by the Aquarium, Water Garden, and Seafood Trades in Canada

2022· other· en· W7133270669 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Farrah T. Chan, D. Andrew R. Drake, Thomas W. Therriault

Bibliographic record

VenueFederal Open Science Repository of Canada / Le Dépôt fédéral de science ouverte du Canada · 2022
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistribution (mathematics)Baseline (sea)Aquatic ecosystemAquatic plantPropaguleCompetition (biology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aquarium, water garden, and live seafood trades are major pathways for the introduction of aquatic species into Canada. If released, some imported species may become invasive, with negative consequences for Canadian ecosystems. This research document describes the movement of live aquatic (freshwater, brackish, and marine) organisms including fishes, invertebrates, and plants in trade into and within Canada, identifies aquatic species previously or presently in trade, describes end user participation and the release of aquatic organisms to the wild, develops spatially explicit estimates of propagule pressure, and identifies possible critical control points. A total of 4,296,188 aquarium organisms, representing 844 taxa, were imported into Canada from 40 source countries during a four-month period in 2018. The top three ports of entry, by trade volume, were Windsor, ON; Mirabel, QC; and, Calgary, AB. Imported aquarium organisms were distributed within Canada via major distribution hubs in Innisfil, ON; LaSalle, QC; and, Calgary, AB. Aquarium retailers tended to aggregate around major urban centers. A baseline scenario assuming a 10.6% participation rate and a 3.9% release rate estimated that 57,799 households released 347,650 aquarium organisms per year. During the same four-month timeframe, 3,758,224 water garden organisms, representing 199 taxa, were imported into Canada from 19 source countries. Major ports of entry and distribution hubs for water garden organisms were the same as the aquarium pathway. Water garden retailers were also found around major cities. An estimated 50,769 households released 305,367 water garden organisms per year, based on an assumed 9.2% participation rate and 3.9% release rate. About 82,434,924 live seafood organisms, representing 84 taxa, were imported into Canada from 20 source countries during the same four-month period. Major ports of entry for live seafood organisms included Ottawa, ON; Richmond, BC; St-Stephen, NB; and, Toronto, ON. Montebello, QC; Chilliwack, BC; and, Cap-Pelé, NB were major distribution hubs for live seafood organisms. Similar to the other pathways, live seafood retailers clustered around major cities. An estimated 47,964 users released 288,502 live seafood organisms per year, based on an assumed 3.5% participation rate and 3.9% release rate. Critical control points that allow the greatest volume of organisms in trade to be encountered were identified. For all three pathways, these included the major ports of entry, key distribution hubs, and urban centres where aggregations of retailers, end users, and releasers occur. Results of sensitivity analyses suggested that all parameters considered had an equal effect on the propagule pressure estimates for all pathways, though they had a disproportionate effect on the spatial distribution of end users and releasers. Despite uncertainty around model parameters, statistically significant hot spots of introduction risk were identified. Maintaining detailed import records and characterizing the human dimensions of the aquarium, water garden, and live seafood trades would reduce uncertainty and refine spatially explicit estimates of propagule pressure associated with each pathway.

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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.189 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFederal Open Science Repository of Canada / Le Dépôt fédéral de science ouverte du Canada→French-language works237,207→