Emergent technologies and analytical approaches for understanding the effects of multiple stressors in aquatic environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to assess how emerging science and new tools can be applied to study multiple stressors on a large (ecosystem) scale and to facilitate greater integration of approaches among different scientific disciplines, a workshop was held on 10–12 September 2014 at the Sydney Institute of Marine Sciences, Sydney, Australia. This workshop aimed to explore the potential offered by new approaches to characterise stressor regimes, to explore stressor-response relationships among biota, to design better early-warning systems and to develop smart tools to support sustainable management of human activities, through more efficient regulation. In this paper we highlight the key issues regarding biological coverage, the complexity of multiply stressed environments, and our inability to predict the biological effects under such scenarios. To address these challenges, we provide an extension of the current Environmental Risk Assessment framework. Underpinning this extension is the harnessing of environmental-genomic data, which has the capacity to provide a broader view of diversity, and to express the ramifications of multiple stressors across multiple levels of biological organisation. We continue to consider how these and other emerging data sources may be combined and analysed using new statistical approaches for disentangling the effects of multiple stressors.
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 | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".