Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"Canadian elected officials and Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) staff have stated that the culling of seals will benefit the recovery of Northwest Atlantic cod stocks. In contrast, published reports in scientific journals, including those authored by DFO biologists, unequivocally conclude that seals are having no demonstrable impact on cod recovery. 'Common sense' arguments that culling seals will 'obviously' benefit the fishery are premised on a mythological view of predators that is unsubstantiated by most scientific evidence. Research conducted in other fisheries has indicated that the complexity of marine food webs, and the diversity of seal diets mean increased seal numbers can sometimes lead to positive effects on commercial fish stocks. Consistently, recent research in terrestrial systems indicates that top predators can have a significant positive impact on numbers of herbivores by reducing numbers of smaller predators. The Canadian political agenda for dealing with the collapse of the cod stocks has evolved to include a subsidized seal cull, and suppression of internal reports contradicting the 'common sense' position adopted by the political leadership."
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it