Preface to the proceedings of the SASKVAL III international workshop on validation and regulatory analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preface to the proceedings of the SASKVAL III international workshop on validation and regulatory analysisA total of 76 participants attended the Workshop held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.They came from Canada (39), the USA (14), Belgium (4), Qatar (3), France (3), 2 each from the Netherlands, Portugal, the UK, Ireland, and one each from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Republic of Korea, Switzerland, Israel, and Hong Kong, Of these, 33 were from government, 15 were from academia, 17 were instrument and equipment manufacturers and primary producers, 10 represented industry and one was a retired government official.While the majority of participants were involved in generating the database for risk analysis and risk assessment for the veterinary drugs of interest to this community, a sizeable number of participants were risk managers directly involved in making risk policy and risk management decisions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.076 | 0.034 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".