MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6906851306 · doi:10.17895/ices.pub.19267508

Report of the Working Group on Environmental Interactions of Mariculture (WGEIM)

2005· report· en· W6906851306 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) · 2005
Typereport
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaricultureWork (physics)Fish <Actinopterygii>AquacultureSubject matterEnvironmental impact assessmentTerminology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.829
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.219
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.097 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES)French-language works237,207