MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2207665179

Public-private research collaborations in Canadian forestry genomics: Knowledge management and innovation

2010· article· en· W2207665179 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kira Kumagai, Keith Culver, David Castle

Bibliographic record

VenueIntegrated Assessment · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New BrunswickUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenomicsOrder (exchange)AgricultureBusinessConsistency (knowledge bases)Quality (philosophy)AquaculturePrivate sectorEnvironmental resource managementBiotechnologyFish <Actinopterygii>Computer sciencePolitical scienceGenomeFisheryEcologyBiologyEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genomics research promises and has begun to deliver social and economic benefits in health, agriculture, environment, forestry and fisheries. Evidence of these benefits includes providing high nutrient level crops through improved consistency in plant breeding, identifying and selecting for the best quality fish in aquaculture, and enabling early detection of cancerous tumors. In order to fully reap the benefits of genomics research it is essential that the knowledge generated is properly managed and disseminated. This means creating pathways and tracking methods for research to move from the discovery phase in the laboratory through to socially embedded innovations. Canadians recognize the importance of genomics research. It is now necessary to develop strategies to translate and transfer genomics research in order to maximize social and economic benefit.

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)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.561

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0180.008
Scholarly communication0.0100.005
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.293 · 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.

Study designQualitative
DomainEvaluation
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntegrated AssessmentSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207