MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6962931181 · doi:10.17895/ices.pub.19259894.v1

ICES Working Group on Grey Seals Report of the First Meeting

2023· report· en· W6962931181 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2023
Typereport
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAesthetic Perception and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStock (firearms)Fish stockFish <Actinopterygii>FishingNorth seaGroup (periodic table)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Damage to fisheries by the Grey seal, Halichoerus grypus, has been a serious problem in the UK and Canada for a number of years. The recent local increases in the abundance of the Grey seal in Norway, with an apparently related increase in fishery damage is seen as a problem which could become widespread if not checked in the near future. In order to give greater consideration to the ' problems associated with increases in stock size, an ICES Working Group was set up (C Res. 1976/2:15) to " •••• review the current status and trends in stock sizes, methodological problems of censusing and factors responsible, for the present expansion of the species. Data on the effects on fish resources, including cod worm and gear damage, should be collected 'and their economic implication considered. The ultimate aim of the Working Group should be to find feasible solutions to this complex problem ,•••• ". The Working Group (see Annex 1), met in Cambridge, UK, from 16-20 May 1977, and the agenda of that, meeting is appended as Annex 2."

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)0.008
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 score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.188

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0560.026

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 head0.290
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.078 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicAesthetic Perception and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207