MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7133278227

Comparison of trapping methods for invasive European green crab

2022· other· en· W7133278227 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 CanadaOregon State UniversityUniversity of Washington
KeywordsPopulationTrappingInvasive speciesTrap (plumbing)IndigenousEstuaryIntroduced speciesTraditional knowledge
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

European Green Crab (EGC) (Carcinus maenas) is a voracious aquatic invasive species (AIS) that poses a serious threat to Canada’s marine and estuarine ecosystems on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), in partnership with stakeholders and Indigenous groups, has developed substantial knowledge of EGC and its trapping. Trapping has been used for early detection, monitoring, research, and physical removal for control. A review of peer reviewed studies and unpublished projects on EGC trapping was conducted to examine different trap types and their usage in Canada and in other locations where EGC have been trapped. Several factors are key in selecting an appropriate trap type based on trapping objectives. Applications of the different trap types, including important characteristics and deployment logistics are provided in a summary table. Trapping is an effective method for early detection and monitoring relative changes in EGC abundances, population dynamics, and native species. Trapping for rapid response and control can effectively reduce EGC numbers and alter population dynamics. Outcomes could include reduction of mean body size of EGC and recovery of impacted native species and habitat, but trapping efforts may need to be sustained. Knowledge gaps and challenges identified include a lack of information on capturing juvenile EGC in Canada and determining effective threshold levels or numbers for control to prevent environmental and fishery impact.

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)0.014
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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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