The Minamata Convention on Mercury and the role for the environmental sciences community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Environmental Toxicology and ChemistryVolume 37, Issue 12 p. 2951-2952 Points of Reference The Minamata Convention on Mercury and the role for the environmental sciences community Niladri Basu, Corresponding Author Niladri Basu Niladri.Basu@mcgill.ca orcid.org/0000-0002-2695-1037 McGill Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada Address correspondence to: Niladri.Basu@mcgill.caSearch for more papers by this author Niladri Basu, Corresponding Author Niladri Basu Niladri.Basu@mcgill.ca orcid.org/0000-0002-2695-1037 McGill Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada Address correspondence to: Niladri.Basu@mcgill.caSearch for more papers by this author First published: 27 November 2018 https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.4269Citations: 6 Points of Reference are part of a regular series intended to address emerging or controversial topics of interest to the scientific community Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article.Citing Literature Volume37, Issue12December 2018Pages 2951-2952 RelatedInformation
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.103 | 0.077 |
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".