Bibliographic record
Abstract
This June ASLO held the 2018 Summer Meeting in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. Student participation made up 34% of the meeting with 335 total registered attendees. ASLO awarded 65 travel grants to students attending the meeting; of the 261 applicants, we were able to fund 25%. Also, for the first time, ASLO provided travel grants to 10 students from developing countries to attend the meeting. There were numerous lunchtime workshops and activities geared toward students at the meeting. On Sunday evening after the opening plenary, the students met together for an opening pub crawl. We ventured to downtown Victoria and connected over beer and science while supporting local breweries. This was an opportunity for the students to meet up and get connected in a nonscientific setting. On Monday, the Student Board Members hosted a networking mixer with food and drinks for student attendees. Senior scientists came to the mixer and were given drink tickets to hand out to get students to give their 1-min elevator pitch. Of course, the tickets eased the conversation, but by the end of the night, the students and scientists were still chatting long after the event was over! On Tuesday, the first lunchtime workshop entitled “Publish Me Please” addressed major publishing concerns most graduate students come across. The panel comprised Pat Soranno (Editor in Chief, L&O Letters), Paul Kemp (Editor in Chief, L&O Methods) Stephanie Hampton (Associate Editor, L&O), Paul Montagna (Editor in Chief, Estuaries and Coasts), and John Downing (Associate Editor, L&O). The panelists discussed their top tips on publishing papers, and how to avoid harsh reviewer comments. The session started with prepared questions but ended with students shouting out numerous questions and thoughts on their fears of publishing. The room was packed tight with over 100 students present! The final lunchtime workshop, entitled “How to ASK so you SHALL receive?” was held on Thursday. Over 150 students sat listening attentively as a panel had a real talk discussion on salary and negotiations. The workshop started off slowly as the students really wondered if they could ask about salaries. The panelists: Amina Pollard (Ecologist, US EPA), Jim Elser (Professor, U of Montana & Director Flathead Lake Biological Station), Grace Wilkinson (Assistant Professor, Iowa State), and Jennifer Cherrier (Professor & Chair Brooklyn College of the City University of New York) quickly jumped in with an icebreaker on their first attempt at negotiations, and how they have as learned better. The students loosened up and we ran out of time trying to answer all the questions. The summer meeting usually has a smaller attendance, which makes for a more intimate setting with students and senior scientists. The opening pub crawl allowed students to meet on the first day and led to more connections throughout the week. All the workshops and activities received great feedback, and we hope to repeat these at future meetings! If you have suggestions for future workshop topics or would like to be involved, we want to hear from you! We look forward to seeing all of you again at our next Aquatic Sciences meeting in San Juan, Puerto Rico!
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".