MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2749317454 · doi:10.1071/aj14090

Regional oil wildlife response capability in northwest Australia—a collaborative approach by oil and gas operators and agencies

2015· article· en· W2749317454 on OpenAlexaff
Gregory Harrison, Nick Quinn, Andrew Best

Bibliographic record

VenueThe APPEA Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicIdentification and Quantification in Food
Canadian institutionsApache (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContingency planWildlifeWildlife refugeOil spillAgency (philosophy)Government (linguistics)CommonwealthEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementFishingEnvironmental protectionPetroleumOffshore oil and gasSubmarine pipelineEnvironmental scienceBusinessGeographyEngineeringFisheryEcologyManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In January 2012, the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Authority (NOPSEMA) took over the environmental assessment of environmental plans (EP) and oil spill contingency plans (OSCP) in Australia’s Commonwealth waters. The requirement to demonstrate capability highlighted several areas of improvement to provide an effective oiled wildlife response (OWLR). An OWL working group was established by several operators with the initial agreement to engage the Australian Marine Oil Spill Centre (AMOSC) as the response agency. The working group of operators has now established an OWLR Plan that was developed in collaboration with AMOSC and the Department of Parks and Wildlife and has provided an industry and government agency coordinated approach to OWLR for the first time.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.246 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe APPEA JournalSame topicIdentification and Quantification in FoodFrench-language works237,207