MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7133276222

Science response: review of proposed aquaculture facilities - Chaleur Bay, NL

2022· other· en· W7133276222 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Pêches et Océans Canada

Bibliographic record

VenueFederal Open Science Repository of Canada / Le Dépôt fédéral de science ouverte du Canada · 2022
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFisheries and Oceans CanadaDepartment of Fisheries and Land Resources
KeywordsAquaculturePelagic zoneHabitatBenthic zoneMarine habitatsMarine conservationBiodiversityMarine species
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Marine Harvest Atlantic Canada (MHAC) has submitted applications for three Atlantic Salmon aquaculture licenses in Chaleur Bay, located on the south coast of Newfoundland. As per the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Memorandum of Understanding on Aquaculture Development, the Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Fisheries and Land Resources has forwarded these applications to Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) for review and advice in relation to DFO’s legislative mandate. The application was supplemented by information collected by the proponent as required by the Aquaculture Activities Regulations (AAR). To help inform the review of the three MHAC site applications, the Regional Aquaculture Management Office has requested Science to provide advice based on the following questions: 1. Based on the available data for the site and scientific information, what is the expected exposure zone from the use of approved fish health treatment products in the marine environment and the predicted consequences to susceptible species? 2. Based on available data, what are the species at risk, commercial, recreational and aboriginal (CRA) species, ecologically sensitive species (ESS), identified Ecologically or Biologically Significant Areas (EBSAs), and their associated habitats, within the predicted benthic exposure zone, that are vulnerable to exposure from the deposition of organic matter? How does this compare to the extent of these species and habitats in the surrounding area (i.e., are they common or rare)? What are the anticipated impacts to these sensitive species and habitats from the proposed aquaculture activity? 3. To support the analysis of risk of entanglement with the proposed aquaculture infrastructure, which pelagic aquatic species at risk make use of the area, and for what duration and when? 4. Which populations of conspecifics are within a geographic range where escapes are likely to migrate? What are the size and status trends of those conspecific populations in the escape exposure zone for proposed site? Are any of these populations listed under Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA)? This Science Response Report results from the Regional Science Response Process of August 5-7, 2020 on the Review of Three Marine Harvest Atlantic Canada Aquaculture Siting Baseline Assessments, Chaleur Bay, Newfoundland.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.928
Threshold uncertainty score0.223

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0090.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0670.029

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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