Report of the NAFO/ICES Pandalus Assessment Working Group (NIPAG)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The NAFO/ICES Pandalus Assessment Group (hereafter 'NIPAG') met at ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen, Denmark, during 25 October-2 November 2006 to consider and report on matters referred to it by the NAFO Scientific Council and ICES ACFM, in particular, to those pertaining to the provision of scientific advice on certain Pandalus stocks in the North Atlantic. Members of the NAFO Standing Committee on Fisheries Science (STACFIS) and the ICES Working Group on Pandalus Stocks (WGPAND) were in attendance with representation from Canada, Denmark (in respect of Greenland), European Union (Denmark, Estonia, Spain, Sweden), Iceland, Norway, and Russian Federation. The Co-Chairs, Don Power (Canada – STACFIS) and Michaela Aschan (Norway – WGPAND), opened the meeting on 25 October 2006 and welcomed the participants.
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 | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.006 |
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".