MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4206866540

Water Framework Directive Intercalibration: Central-Baltic Lake Fish fauna ecological assessment methods. Part B: Development of the intercalibration common metric; Part C: Intercalibration

2017· preprint· en· W4206866540 on OpenAlexaff
David Ritterbusch, Christine Argillier, Jens Arle, W. Bialokoz, Jānis Birzaks, Petr Blabolil, Jan Breine, H. Draszkiewicz-Mioduszewska, Nicolaas G. Jaarsma, Y. Karottki, Teet Krause, Jan Kubečka, Torben L. Lauridsen, Maxime Logez, Anthony Maire, A Palm, Graeme Peirson, Jacek Szlakowski, Tomas Virbickas, Sandra Poikāne

Bibliographic record

VenueHAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe) · 2017
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Environment
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWater Framework DirectiveFish <Actinopterygii>DirectiveEnvironmental scienceFaunaEcologyFisheryGeographyWater qualityBiologyComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The European Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires the national classifications of good ecological status to be harmonised through an intercalibration exercise. In this exercise, significant differences in status classification among Member States are harmonized by comparing and, if necessary, adjusting the good status boundaries of the national assessment methods. \nIntercalibration is performed for rivers, lakes, coastal and transitional waters, focusing on selected types of water bodies (intercalibration types), anthropogenic pressures and Biological Quality Elements. Intercalibration exercises are carried out in Geographical Intercalibration Groups - larger geographical units including Member States with similar water body types - and followed the procedure described in the WFD Common Implementation Strategy Guidance document on the intercalibration process (European Commission, 2011). \nThe Technical report on the Water Framework Directive intercalibration describes in detail how the intercalibration exercise has been carried out for the water categories and biological quality elements. The Technical report is organized in volumes according to the water category (rivers, lakes, coastal and transitional waters), Biological Quality Element and Geographical Intercalibration group. This volume addresses the intercalibration of the Lake Central-Baltic Fish ecological assessment methods.\nThis volume on intercalibration of the Lake Central Baltic Fish ecological assessment methods is split into three parts:\nPart A, a document that provides an overview and detailed descriptions of fish-based lake ecological assessment methods.\nParts B and C: This document comprises two Parts, B and C. Part B describes the construction of multiple pressure index in the Central-Baltic region. Part C describes the procedure and results of the boundary harmonisation of national fish-based lake assessment systems.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.009

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe)→Same topicFish Ecology and Management Studies→French-language works237,207→