MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415939129 · doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsaf192

Identifying and addressing the challenges of early-career ocean professionals during the MSEAS conference

2025· article· en· W4415939129 on OpenAlexafffund
Hélène Buchholzer, SD Frusher, Hana Matsubara, Olivier Thébaud, Jake Rice, Sonia Batten, Alan C. Haynie, Amber Himes‐Cornell

Bibliographic record

VenueICES Journal of Marine Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoastal and Marine Management
Canadian institutionsGovernment of CanadaNorth Pacific Marine Science OrganizationFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersNational Marine Fisheries ServiceNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationUniversity of TokyoInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
KeywordsOrder (exchange)Sustainable developmentMarine researchKey (lock)Ocean observationsBest practice

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In recent years, there has been a growing international effort to address the challenges related to the sustainable use of the ocean. To this end, policy-relevant socio-ecological systems research has been evolving to tackle complex, multi-dimensional problems in marine science and ocean policy. The associated transformation of research practices introduces new challenges in contemporary scientific work, particularly for early-career ocean professionals (ECOPs). This paper explores three key challenges raised by ECOPs during the Marine Socio-Ecological Systems (MSEAS) symposium, along with insights gained from discussions with advanced career researchers working in international organizations such as PICES, ICES, IPBES, IPOS, and FAO. The first challenge addresses working in interdisciplinary research; the second relates to the development of communication skills; the third emphasizes the importance of international collaboration across countries and research disciplines, and integration into international organizations and processes. These challenges are acknowledged by the international organizations, and efforts are underway to better incorporate ECOPs into existing frameworks and institutions. Additionally, the discussions gave practical advice to ECOPs, such as clarifying professional objectives early in one’s career in order to better navigate marine socio-ecological research and to step outside of one’s comfort zone while being aware of the risks.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0230.007
Scholarly communication0.0170.005
Open science0.0020.029
Research integrity0.0050.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.003

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueICES Journal of Marine ScienceSame topicCoastal and Marine ManagementFrench-language works237,207