MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7001231445

Information to support decisions on authorizing scientific surveys with bottom-contacting gears in NAFO closed areas

2023· other· en· W7001231445 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)) · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFishingSample (material)Data collectionMarine safetyScientific literatureDecision support system
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are presently no existing frameworks or approaches in NAFO to assist in determining under what conditions scientific surveys employing bottom-contacting gear can be permitted in protected areas. Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) has produced a Canadian National Framework to guide the evaluation of scientific surveys within protected areas inside the Canadian waters. The objective of this document is to apply to the scientific surveys that are carried out in the NRA the framework developed by the DFO for the collection of information that can help managers in the decision of whether the actual scientific surveys can sample or not in the closed areas to bottom fishing activities.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.060
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.148
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.498
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0600.148
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0080.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.060

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 head0.244
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.140 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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 venueDIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC))French-language works237,207