MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7133277566

Review of MHAC aquaculture siting baseline assessments

2022· other· en· W7133277566 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
KeywordsBayBaseline (sea)Benthic zoneAquacultureHabitatMarine spatial planningEcosystemScale (ratio)Fish <Actinopterygii>
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The review of the 13 site applications for Atlantic Salmon aquaculture farms was conducted using the baseline assessments provided by the Proponent as required by the Aquaculture Activities Regulations (AAR), and other relevant scientific data, to evaluate the potential habitat and species interactions. Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) is currently developing a consistent approach for the scientific evaluation of marine siting applications for finfish aquaculture. This review is the first implementation of this approach in the Newfoundland and Labrador (NL) Region. The Proponent used a depositional model (DEPOMOD) to predict the benthic carbon footprint of the proposed aquaculture sites. DFO Science used potential exposure zone (PEZ) calculations to provide an estimate of the spatial scale of PEZs but these do not quantify intensity or duration of exposure nor include a frequency of exposure. The two models provided similar results. There was an overlap between the mean benthic PEZ and the DEPOMOD outputs. Discussions related to approved drug and pesticide usages were limited to spatial considerations. Cumulative effects of biochemical oxygen demand, drugs, and pesticides were not discussed. Each of the sites was assessed for the presence of sensitive species, species listed under the Species at Risk Act, and sensitive habitats. At six of the sites, cold-water corals (e.g. sea pens), which are indicators of vulnerable marine ecosystems, were identified. At the Little Bay site, sea pens, which are known nurseries for redfish, were detected under the proposed cage array. The population-level effect of potential impacts was not assessed due to a lack of information available on the density and distribution of these species throughout the region. Sea lice pose a threat to the wild Atlantic Salmon populations. It is anticipated that the addition of sites will increase the presence of sea lice and, therefore, sea lice treatments. Assessments of wild Atlantic Salmon population status in the area are limited; however, existing counting fences indicate significant and consistent ongoing declines (approximately 80% over three generations), the cause of which is not fully understood. These populations are in the Critical Zone (below 100% conservation egg requirement). Moreover, existing data has documented the presence of escaped farmed salmon and hybridization between wild and farmed Atlantic Salmon throughout Salmon Fishing Area (SFA) 11. The assessment of the potential genetic impacts on Atlantic Salmon populations along the south coast of Newfoundland was completed based on the best available scientific data (North American and European) and the size and location of the existing and proposed sites. The proposed scale of expansion is predicted to result in an increased number of escapees in southern Newfoundland rivers largely in the Bay d’Espoir area compared to present operations. These increases are predicted to be associated with demographic decline and genetic change, though there is uncertainty as to the magnitude of both. Mitigation measures proposed by the Proponent to reduce the frequency of escape events were not included in the empirical predictions. These mitigation measures have been shown to be effective in other jurisdictions.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0120.013
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 Canada→French-language works237,207→