Results of a Wildlife Toxicology Workshop held by Smithsonian Institution: Identification & Prioritization of Problem Statements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background/Question/Methods On March 13-15, 2007 nearly 50 scientists and administrators from the US and Canada participated in a Smithsonian-sponsored Wildlife Toxicology Workshop. Invitees were from academic, government, conservation and private organizations and were selected to represent the diverse disciplines that encompass wildlife toxicology. The workshop addressed scientific and policy issues, strengths and weaknesses of current research strategies, interdisciplinary and science-based approaches in the study of complex contaminant issues, mechanisms for disseminating data to policy-makers, and the development of a partner network to meet the challenges facing wildlife toxicology over the next decade. Prior to the meeting, participants were asked to submit issues deemed to be of highest concern which shaped four thematic groups for discussion: Wildlife Toxicology in Education, Risk Assessment, Multiple Stressors/Complex Mixtures, and Sub-Lethal and Population-Level Effects. Results/Conclusions From these discussion groups, 18 problem statements were developed and prioritized outlining the most important issues to address now and into the future. Along with each problem statement participants developed potential solutions and action steps geared to move each issue forward. The workshop served as a stepping-stone for action in the field of wildlife toxicology. These problem statements and the resulting action items are presented to the inter-disciplinary wildlife toxicology community for adoption, and future work and action items in these areas are encouraged. For example, it was found that ecologists would be essential in addressing the implications of sublethal or lethal effects of contaminants on wildlife at the population, community and ecosystem scales. The workshop outcome looks to generate conversation and collaboration that will lead to the development of innovative research, future mechanisms for funding, workshops, working groups, and listserves within the wildlife toxicology community.
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 | 0.095 | 0.121 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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.
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".