Science response: review of five proposed aquaculture facilities - Placentia Bay, NL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Grieg Aquaculture (GA) has submitted applications for five Atlantic Salmon aquaculture licenses in Placentia Bay located on the south coast of Newfoundland (Channel Harbour, Gilbert’s Cove, Jude Island, Paradise Sound, St. Leonard’s). The Proponent’s site applications were submitted to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador (NL) and referred to Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) for siting advice. DFO Science has been asked for a review of the predicted exposure zones associated with the range of aquaculture activities and the predicted impacts on species and the habitats that support them. The proponent has submitted a site application package for each site that includes a Baseline Assessment Report in accordance with the Aquaculture Activities Regulations (AARs). DFO is developing a siting framework to promote a consistent approach to aquaculture site reviews. This framework will include four standardized questions the Regional Aquaculture Management Office (RAMO) uses to ensure a comprehensive review of site applications and inform DFO advice to the Province: 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 Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas (EBSAs); Species At Risk (SAR); fishery species; and ecologically significant species (ESS) and their associated habitats that are within the predicted benthic exposure zone and 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 the proposed site? Are any of these populations listed under Schedule 1 of the Species At Risk Act (SARA)? In relation to these particular site applications, significant scientific advice has previously been provided for many elements of the above four questions (DFO 2016, DFO 2018). The RAMO is seeking science advice, as a priority, in particular on questions one and two, as well as any new scientific information relevant to the other questions that may now be available. This Science Response Report results from the Regional Science Response Process of June 29-30, 2021 Request for Aquaculture Siting Advice for Provincial Site Licence Applications from Grieg Aquaculture in Placentia 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.071 | 0.030 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".