MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986803238 · doi:10.7901/2169-3358-2014.1.1596

Understanding the Keys to Effective Information Management and Situation Display During a Pollution Response

2014· article· en· W1986803238 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jill Bodnar, Michele Jacobi, Ed Bock, Eric Doucette, Judd Muskat, Todd Barr

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Oil Spill Conference Proceedings · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicOil Spill Detection and Mitigation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSituation awarenessProcess (computing)Situational ethicsGovernment (linguistics)Work (physics)Quality (philosophy)Oil spillPollutionComputer scienceBusinessProcess managementEnvironmental sciencePsychologyEngineeringEnvironmental protection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT As technology and access to information increases, so do the expectations by leadership and the public for the highest quality and most current information during a pollution response (USCG, 2010). This demand is essential to the incident's decision-making process and for situational awareness (USCG, 2010, 2011a). The influx of response data generated must be met by savvy teams of information managers who can provide this need in a timely, efficient manner. This process is further complicated by the relationship between government and industry responders, both of whom often have different information management requirements yet need to work cooperatively with the same data (USCG, 2011b). In this paper, information management common themes, successes, and failure points from three case studies including the M/V Cosco Busan oil spill, the Hurricane Sandy pollution response, and the U.S./Canada CANUSLANT oil spill exercise are discussed. Although these incidents and exercise have significant operational differences, the need for efficient dissemination of quality information remains the same.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.006
Scholarly communication0.0160.015
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Oil Spill Conference ProceedingsSame topicOil Spill Detection and MitigationFrench-language works237,207