Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2000, a survey was conducted on whale-watching tourists in west Scotland. Slightly more females went whale-watching than expected and generally whale-watchers were middle-aged, although there was a notable proportion of younger participants. Whale-watchers were more likely to be accompanied by children than general tourists. Whale-watchers were also predominantly middle-class and well-educated. Most (83.8%) were British, a quarter of which were Scottish. Seventy percent were repeat visitors to the area. Sixty-two per cent of whale-watchers stated that they were on their first whale-watching trip, and of those who had been whale-watching before, the majority (43.3%) had done so in the UK (90.4% in Scotland). Most whale-watchers (81.4%) had previously been aware of the occurrence of cetaceans in West Scotland and 75.2% could correctly name at least one local species; the most commonly cited species being the minke whale (31.7%). However, fewer than half of the tourists were aware of whale-watching opportunities in the region and 40% of whale-watchers had only become aware of whale-watching opportunities when they arrived in the area, demonstrating a need to publicise and promote the availability of whale-watching trips in West Scotland.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it