History of research at the St. Andrews Biological Station – a perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2008, it was my privilege to be a keynote speaker at the conference celebrating the one hundredth anniversary of the permanent biological station at St. Andrews, New Brunswick.The historical papers given by participating scientists and technical experts revealed the impressive breadth, diversity, importance and sheer relevance of studies undertaken at the St. Andrews Biological Station (herein called SABS) over its hundred years.The scope of investigations revealed how much has been missed by other experts who have analysed fisheries and aquatic science -notably historians of science, sociologists, and maritime legal scholars.Their focus has been on science relevant to the theory of fishing and the management of commercial populations.For example, at the 2016 Coastal Zone Canada Conference in Toronto, one speaker commented on the narrowness of fisheries biology as a field, and linked current sustainability problems to that supposedly narrow focus.However, the book inspired by the SABS centenary celebration -A Century of Maritime Science, Hubbard, Wildish and Stephenson (2016) -shows that a history focused only on the development and elaboration of the theory of fishing misses huge swathes of fisheries and coastal science.In fact, despite the breadth of science covered in the book, it does not showcase all of the important research streams at SABS! Fisheries and aquatic scientists have been doing a great deal more than most people realize.Recent Canadian and international scholarship has highlighted that if we are to attain environmental sustainability, and in this context for the oceans, it is important that we encourage collaboration across disciplines -collaboration that draws together academics, scientists, sociologists, indigenous peoples, and experts of all kinds, including local fishers, fishing associations, and especially historians.
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.003 |
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".