The 6th International Conference and Workshop on Lobster Biology and Management: an Introduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Every three years or so, the International Conference and Workshop on Lobster Biology and Management (ICWL) brings together lobster scientists, fishery managers, and industry representatives from around the world for a week of scientific presentations, workshops, and discussions on lobster biology and management. The first ICWL was held in Perth, Australia, in January 1977. Its purpose was to bring together a small group of lobster researchers from the USA and Australia to discuss common issues and themes. That initial workshop spawned a continuing series of meetings that have become the international lobster conference for scientists—the equivalent of an international congress meeting. The second conference was in St. Andrews, Canada, in 1985; the third in Havana, Cuba, in 1990; the fourth in Sanriku, Japan, in 1993; and the fifth in Queenstown, New Zealand, in 1997. The number of participants and the international representation at the conference has grown from 34 scientists and managers from 6 countries at the first meeting to over 200 participants from 25 countries at the September 2000 meeting in Key West, Florida (USA). All told, 126 oral presentations and 43 poster presentations took place during the five-day meeting.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".