Report of the working group on environmental interactions of mariculture (WGEIM)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
WGEIM met in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada from 14–19 April, 2008. The meet‐ing was attended by 18 scientists representing 7 countries. The location facilitated a joint‐meeting between ICES WGEIM and PICES (North Pacific Marine Science Or‐ganisation). Issues of common interest were discussed in the course of the meeting and broadly reflected the past and current Terms of Reference of WGEIM. The meet‐ing highlighted that the issue of sustainability and the measurement of such is up‐permost in most jurisdictions but that the levels (thresholds) assigned to acceptability of environmental impact vary considerably between Europe/North America and Asia. The PICES group considered the feasibility of establishing a group similar to WGEIM and prepared a justification brief for the PICES secretariat. WGEIM re‐viewed the draft ICES Science Plan and strongly recommended that given the global importance of mariculture, it is important that ICES continue to include mariculture as a primary focus in Action and Science plans. In addition, four existing terms of reference were addressed by the group and are summarised below.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".