MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083724493 · doi:10.7901/2169-3358-2011-1-427

Arctic Council Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (AMSA)

2011· article· en· W2083724493 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Atle Fretheim, Elizabeth McLanahan, Soffía Guðmundsdóttir

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Oil Spill Conference Proceedings · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArcticThe arcticScope (computer science)Work (physics)Environmental planningBusinessEnvironmental protectionEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental scienceOceanographyGeographyEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (AMSA) Report, including its recommendations, was approved by the Arctic Council Ministers in April 2009 and is the culmination of four years of work completed under the leadership of the the Council's working group on Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME). The overall scope of the AMSA focuses on ships and their infrastructure needs and impacts in the Arctic Ocean. AMSA was led by three countries, Canada, Finland and the United States and included data and expertise from all the Arctic States, the Permanent Participants and the global maritime industry. The focus of the AMSA is on marine safety and marine environmental protection, which is consistent with the Arctic Council's mandates of environmental protection and sustainable development. AMSA consists of an extensive shipping activity database; nine chapters followed by findings and recommendations intended to influence policy makers and future Arctic planning. AMSA identifies 17 recommendati...

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.333
Threshold uncertainty score0.663

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.006

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations10
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Oil Spill Conference ProceedingsSame topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207