The UN Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP) — An ocean science-policy interface standing the test of time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Addressing the wide range of marine pollution problems facing the global ocean requires a continual transfer of credible, relevant and timely scientific information to policy and decision makers in coastal and ocean management. The United Nations GESAMP (Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection) is a long-standing scientific advisory group providing such information on a wide range of marine topics and emerging issues of concern to ten UN Sponsoring Organizations. This paper presents an overview of GESAMPs operation and examples of its current work. The group's scientific output is often cited by national governments, inter-governmental groups, and a range of non-governmental groups. Given the growing concerns about ocean health and the impacts of many stressors in an era of climate change, the development of timely and effective ocean policy and decision making would benefit from wider recognition and application of GESAMPs work.
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 | 0.022 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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.
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".