Report of the Working Group on Environmental Interactions of Mariculture (WGEIM)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Working Group on the Environmental Interactions of Mariculture (WGEIM) met at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, in Ottawa, Canada from 11–15 April 2005. This year’s meeting was attended by 13 scientists from 8 countries, including an observer from the Canadian Aquaculture industry. Five Terms of Reference were addressed by the group. The first two covered much the same subject matter and specifically dealt with the development of risk analysis of escaped nonsalmonid aquacuture fish species. During the meeting, members of WGEIM continued to elaborate on documents describing the fundamental aspects of Risk Analysis, and applying the procedure to environmental interactions of aquaculture. Specifically, work was done on: (1) Improving the logical links between the expression of the theoretical aspects of Risk Analysis and its application to environmental aspects of aquaculture, (2) developing examples of Logic Models to aid the consequence analysis stage of the process, (3) clarifying criteria used in decision matrices and (4) specifically applying the risk analysis to turbot. These documents and those of the other species dealt with by WGEIM 2004 will be finalised intersessionally, following review by WGAGFM, the Mariculture Committee and the GESAMP WG-31. These actions will form the basis of a term of reference for WGEIM 2006.
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 | 0.018 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.007 |
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".