Bibliographic record
Abstract
Certificate of analyst as proof (11) Subject to subsections (12) and (13), a certificate purporting to be signed by an analyst stating that he has analyzed or tested a substance or product and stating the result of his analysis or test is admissible in evidence in any prosecution for an offence under subsection 40(2) or (3) without proof of the signature or official character of the person appearing to have signed the certificate and, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, is proof of the statements contained in the certificate. Cited as seen Fisheries Act http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/F-14.pdf Documents admissible in evidence 13.091 (1) A document made, given or issued under this Act and appearing to be signed by an analyst is admissible in evidence and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, is proof of the statements contained in the document without proof of the signature or official character of the person appearing to have signed the document. Cited as seen and referenced Canadian Wildlife Act http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/W-9.pdf
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 | 0.018 | 0.129 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.025 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.090 | 0.042 |
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".