Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to present the status of NAFO roughhead grenadier Subarea 2 and 3 stock based on different \nassessments models using all the available information. Different assessment methods have been applied based on \nthe data available described above. The assessment was carried out with three different methods: Extended \nSurvivors Analysis (XSA, Shepherd, 1999; Darby and Flatman, 1994), a Stock-Production Model Incorporating \nCovariates (ASPIC, Prager 1994 and 2004) and a qualitative assessment based on survey and fishery information. \nXSA and ASPIC results are considered uncertainties due to the low Fishing mortality estimated compare with the \nnatural mortality level assumed in the case of the XSA and due to the lack of contrast in the data used in the ASPIC \ncase. Although all these problem both models results present a very similar trend in the fishing mortality and \nbiomass values and are comparable to the qualitative assessment base on the Canadian fall survey series (Div. \n2J+3K) and the Spanish survey in Divisions 3NO that there are considered by the NAFO Scientific Council as the \nbest survey information to monitor trends in resource status. \nBiomass presents in all methods a general increased trend in the analysed period with its maximum level in the last \nyears. With regard to fishing mortality estimates from different methods, it can be observed that the trends of the \ndifferent estimations of F were very similar and that the actual level of F is the minimum of the period due to the \nincrease of the biomass and the decrease of the caches in the last years. The strong 2001 year class have been \nweaker than expected since 2005 in both survey indices. The level of the recruitment in last period appears to be \nsmaller than the observer before.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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 it