MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119680208 · doi:10.7557/2.32.2.2232

13th North American Caribou Workshop, 25-28 October 2010, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.

2012· article· en· W2119680208 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rolf Egil Haugerud, Micheline Manseau, Deborah Simmons, Dennis Brannen, Vince Crichton, Mark Ryckman, Jessica Elliott

Bibliographic record

VenueRangifer · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCircumpolar starGeographyCorporate governanceTraditional knowledgeMetisEnvironmental resource managementPolitical scienceEnvironmental planningEcologyIndigenousManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 13th North American Caribou Workshop which was held in Winnipeg, Manitoba, was a great success with more than 400 participants: people from Canada, the United States, Norway and Greenland, representatives from co-management and resource management boards across North America, First Nations, Inuit and Inuvialuit, governmental and non-governmental organisations, private companies, researchers, students and youth. The theme of the Workshop was Sustaining Caribou and their Landscapes – Knowledge to Action and the intent of the organizers was twofold: first, to provide participants with the opportunity to share scientific and traditional knowledge on different subspecies and ecotypes of Rangifer across the circumpolar North, the particularities of the different landscapes and land use management issues; second, to explore innovative ways to transfer knowledge to action, ensuring the long-term persistence of Rangifer throughout its range through the development of better governance structures, sound policies and effective communication.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.205
Threshold uncertainty score0.412

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1040.017

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRangiferSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207