MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321505830 · doi:10.18174/586229

Pilotstudie inzet Litter-ID bij de landelijke monitoringstrategie voor rivierafval : Resultaten van een pilotstudie waarin onderzocht is of en hoe de Litter-ID-methodiek kan bijdragen aan de landelijke monitoringstrategie voor rivierafval van Rijkswaterstaat

2023· report· nl· W4321505830 on OpenAlexaff
W.J. Strietman, Marije Boonstra, Paolo Tasseron, E. Giesbers, M.J. van den Heuvel-Greve, A. te Koppele

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languagenl
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Conservation and Management
Canadian institutionsImpact
FundersRijkswaterstaatWageningen University and Research
KeywordsChristian ministryLitterHumanitiesForestryArtTheologyGeographyBiologyEcologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In dit rapport staan de resultaten en aanbevelingen van een pilotstudie waarin in opdracht van Rijkswaterstaat Water, Verkeer en Leefomgeving (namens het Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Waterstaatstaat) bepaald is of en hoe de door Wageningen University & Research ontwikkelde Litter-ID-methodiek kan bijdragen aan de landelijke monitoringstrategie van rivierafval, die ontwikkeld wordt vanuit Rijkswaterstaat.---This report contains the results and recommendations of a pilot project commissioned by Rijkswaterstaat Water, Traffic and the Environment (on behalf of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water) to determine if and how the Litter-ID methodology, developed by Wageningen University & Research, can contribute to the national monitoring strategy for riverine litter currently being developed by Rijkswaterstaat.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.246
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.250 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnvironmental Conservation and ManagementFrench-language works237,207