Unauthorized Hair Samples Submitted for Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Correspondence issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "The National Interagency Canada Lynx Survey (Protocol) was designed to determine the presence of Canada lynx through deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) analysis of hair samples recovered from scratch pads in forests in the northern United States. Beginning in January 2002, GAO investigated the submission of unauthorized samples to the University of Montana's laboratory as part of the National Survey and investigated whether the biologists involved had communications about their submissions. GAO found were four instances in which unauthorized hair samples, not obtained from the Wenatchee and Gifford Pinchot National Forests, were submitted for DNA testing as part of the National Survey for those forests. These included one submission on bobcat hair in 1999, and three submissions of lynx hair in September and October 2000. The biologists maintain that they submitted these samples to test the accuracy of the work done by the laboratory, although they knew that the Protocol for the National Survey did not provide for such action. They also said that they did not have the authority to make these submissions and that they were aware that they had alternatives for testing the laboratory other than submitting samples as part of the survey. GAO summarized this report in testimony before Congress, see GAO-02-496T."
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.060 | 0.034 |
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".