Evaluation Reports for TEBT-2024-0005 - Sandhu et al.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evaluation reports for "Evidence-based approaches to managing Canadian oil sands tailing pond waste: tighter regulations and greater transparency are needed" by Sandhu et al. This commentary outlines a set of principles for regulatory management of oils sands process-affected water (OSPW) in Canada that is intended to be practical, consistent with the “polluter pays” principle, and respectful of the rights and concerns of indigenous communities who are disproportionately affected by the environmental impact of the tar sands industry. The peer-reviewers found the issues being addressed in this manuscript to be important and challenging, and that a detailed commentary on oil sands process-affected water (OSPW) will be a valuable contribution to the scientific literature.
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 | 0.111 | 0.292 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.067 | 0.016 |
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".