Overview of the CAT process and the peer review of a protocol for a systematic map to address the effects of Sea Lice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sea lice have been linked to effects on wild salmon. However, there remains uncertainty about the contribution of salmon farms to those effects. The current peer review process reviewed a protocol to develop a systematic map that will be used to address the primary question, “What are the effects of sea lice from net-pen salmon farms on wild Pacific salmon in British Columbia?” A systematic map is an approach that systematically and transparently collects and describes the abundance and distribution of research effort (i.e., research papers and grey literature), and identifies groups of information (evidence clusters) and knowledge gaps. An evidence cluster is a group of studies or cases investigating a similar topic within the broader primary question. The overarching process consists of three phases, culminating in a systematic review(s). The development of a systematic map in Phase I involves searching specialist websites and databases using relevant, pre-defined, and specific search terms. The retrieved records are then screened using pre-defined eligibility criteria for inclusion in ongoing analysis. This process ensures transparency, repeatability, and rigour. The systematic map will provide a collated broad summary of the existing scientific information to assess the effects of sea lice belonging to the genera Lepeophtheirus and Caligus on five species of Pacific salmon (Chinook, coho, chum, sockeye, and pink). The systematic map will include lice on wild, enhanced, and farmed Pacific and Atlantic salmon globally to ensure that the most relevant studies are available in determining evidence clusters for the systematic review(s). Once the systematic map is assembled, areas where sufficient evidence exists (evidence clusters) to enable systematic review(s) will be identified. As part of the subsequent systematic review(s), the prioritized evidence clusters will be critically appraised to assess the bias and potential ability of each piece of information to address the primary question. For the systematic map, species of salmon and sea lice will initially be considered separately. Ideally, an evidence cluster will be defined as a group of at least twenty-five similar cases but could be as low as three. If few evidence clusters emerge with more than three cases, species will be grouped. At a minimum, cases will be divided by Pacific and Atlantic salmon, and the sea lice genera of Lepeophtheirus and Caligus. This scientific peer review process provided peer review of the systematic map protocol, and set out directions for the next two phases to address the primary question including: 1. Searching for information on farmed and wild Pacific and Atlantic salmon globally. 2. Searching all species of the sea louse genera, Lepeophtheirus and Caligus. 3. Considering the inclusion of studies beyond the languages of English and French. 4. Guidance on what will constitute an evidence cluster in the subsequent systematic review.
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 | 0.301 | 0.393 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.149 | 0.048 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".