MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2563653974

South African research in the Southern Ocean : new opportunities but serious challenges : : commentary

2013· article· en· W2563653974 on OpenAlexaff
Anne M. Treasure, Coleen L. Moloney, Åke Fagereng, Peter G. Ryan, Isabelle Ansorge, Marthán N Bester, Ken Findlay, Peter B. Best, Don A. Cowan, P J Nico de Bruyn, Christopher D. McQuaid, Rosemary A. Dorrington, P. William Froneman, Ian Meiklejohn, G.H. Grantham, Brian P. V. Hunt, Evgeny A. Pakhomov, Alakendra N. Roychoudhury, V. R. Smith, Steven L. Chown

Bibliographic record

VenueSouth African Journal of Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransparency (behavior)Threatened speciesConfusionField researchPoliticsPolitical scienceState (computer science)Investment (military)Research programClimate changeEconomic growthGeographyEnvironmental resource managementPublic relationsOceanographySociologyEcologyHabitatEconomicsSocial science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

South Africa has a long track record in Southern Ocean and Antarctic research and has recently invested considerable funds in acquiring new infrastructure for ongoing support of this research. This infrastructure includes a new base at Marion Island and a purpose-built ice capable research vessel, which greatly expand research opportunities. Despite this investment, South Africa's standing as a participant in this critical field is threatened by confusion, lack of funding, lack of consultation and lack of transparency. The research endeavour is presently bedevilled by political manoeuvring among groups with divergent interests that too often have little to do with science, while past and present contributors of research are excluded from discussions that aim to formulate research strategy. This state of affairs is detrimental to the country's aims of developing a leadership role in climate change and Antarctic research and squanders both financial and human capital.

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)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.116
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.116
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0120.019
Scholarly communication0.0090.016
Open science0.0060.011
Research integrity0.0450.038
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.193
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.167 · 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
GenreCommentary

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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSouth African Journal of ScienceSame topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207