MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6944064139 · doi:10.17895/ices.pub.19267445

Pandalus Assessment Working Group Report (WGPAND)

2005· report· en· W6944064139 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBIBSYS Brage (BIBSYS (Norway)) · 2005
Typereport
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNorwegianFish stockStock (firearms)North seaShrimpHerring

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ICES Pandalus Assessment Working Group [WGPAND] met in Halifax, 26 October–3 November 2005. The WG participants represented Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Russia (Section 2). The terms of reference for the Working group were: To carry out assessments of the stock of Pandalus in Skagerrak and the Norwegian Deeps (IIIa and Iva East) and the stock in the Barents Sea and Svalbard area (I and II) and to provide advice (catch options) for these stocks in 2006, see Section 1. This year’s meeting was organised as a joint meeting between WGPAND and NAFO STACFIS annual shrimp meeting with common participation in all sessions by both WGPAND and STACFIS members.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.007

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 venueBIBSYS Brage (BIBSYS (Norway))French-language works237,207