Proceedings of the regional peer-review meeting for evaluating the ecological benefits and risks of an experimental Eastern Sand Darter (Ammocrypta pellucida) reintroduction in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) regional peer-review meeting was held on April 3–6th, 2023 via Microsoft Teams to evaluate the ecological benefits, feasibility, and risks of an experimental Eastern Sand Darter (Ammocrypta pellucida) reintroduction in Ontario. This CSAS was a follow-up implementation case study to a national CSAS peer-review meeting Decision Support Framework for the Conservation Translocation of SARA-listed Freshwater Fishes and Mussels. The objectives of the meeting were to evaluate the ecological factors that could influence the successful reintroduction of Eastern Sand Darter into candidate recipient locations from candidate source populations; evaluate the risks associated with such a reintroduction to both Eastern Sand Darter and the broader ecosystem at source and recipient locations; and, to evaluate the change in survival or recovery of Eastern Sand Darter resulting from re-establishment in a formerly occupied location. Building from the framework developed during the national Conservation Translocation CSAS, questions related to the probability of success and unintended ecological consequences were tailored to Eastern Sand Darter in two candidate source rivers and two candidate recipient rivers (where the species historically occurred). Relevant data and analyses to inform each question were compiled and presented in a working paper, and distributed to participants in advance of the peer-review meeting. Following a review of this information during the meeting, a quantitative, structured expert judgement (modified Delphi) exercise was undertaken to capture expert opinion and associated uncertainty on the ecological benefits and risk factors associated with an experimental reintroduction.
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 | 0.064 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.005 |
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".