NEAFC request to evaluate and advice on the appropriateness of the plan for a scientific survey for pelagic <i>Sebastes mentella</i> in ICES sub-areas I and II
Bibliographic record
Abstract
NEAFC has requested ICES to review the plan for a new international scientific survey for pelagic Sebastes mentella in ICES Area I and II: The Contracting Parties agreed to conduct a scientific survey for pelagic Sebastes mentella in ICES Sub-areas I and II during August-September 2008 to measure the horizontal and vertical stock distribution and provide an abundance estimate. The survey will be organized by scientists appointed by the contracting parties and chaired by Norway. ICES received the survey plan 2 April 2008. ICES has asked three reviewers to evaluate the plan. The reviewers selected were: Eckhard Bethke (Germany), Ghislain A. Chouinard (Canada), and Pall Reynisson (Iceland). They are all fisheries scientists and highly respected experts in that type of surveys for assessment purposes. They are also independent in the sense that they are not involved with the survey in terms of planning, implementation or results.
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 | 0.010 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.211 | 0.086 |
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".