Annual report 2007 - North Pacific Marine Science Organization (PICES). Sixteenth meeting, Victoria, Canada, October 26-November 5, 2007
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Report of Opening Session (p. 1). Report of Governing Council (p. 15).Report of the Finance and Administration Committee (p. 65). Reports of Science Board and Committees:Science Board Inter-Sessional Meeting (p. 83);Science Board (p. 93); Biological Oceanography Committee (p. 105); Fishery Science Committee (p. 117);Marine Environmental Quality Committee (p. 129);Physical Oceanography and Climate Committee (p. 139);Technical Committee on Data Exchange (p. 145);Technical Committee on Monitoring (p. 153). Reports of Sections, Working and Study Groups:Section on Carbon and Climate (p. 161);Section on Ecology of Harmful Algal Blooms in the North Pacific (p. 167);Working Group 19 on Ecosystem-based Management Science and its Application to the North Pacific (p. 173);Working Group 20 on Evaluations of Climate Change Projections (p. 179);Working Group 21 on Non-indigenous Aquatic Species (p. 183);Study Group to Develop a Strategy for GOOS (p. 193);Study Group on Ecosystem Status Reporting (p. 203);Study Group on Marine Aquaculture and Ranching in the PICES Region (p. 213);Study Group on Scientific Cooperation between PICES and Non-member Countries (p. 225). Reports of the Climate Change and Carrying Capacity Program:Implementation Panel on the CCCC Program (p. 229);CFAME Task Team (p. 235);MODEL Task Team (p. 241).Reports of Advisory Panels: Advisory Panel for a CREAMS/PICES Program in East Asian Marginal Seas (p. 249);Advisory Panel on Continuous Plankton Recorder Survey in the North Pacific (p. 253);Advisory Panel on Iron Fertilization Experiment in the Subarctic Pacific Ocean (p. 255);Advisory Panel on Marine Birds and Mammals (p. 261);Advisory Panel on Micronekton Sampling Inter-calibration Experiment (p. 265).2007 Review of PICES Publication Program (p. 269). Guidelines for PICES Temporary Expert Groups (p. 297). Summary of Scientific Sessions and Workshops (p. 313). Report of the ICES/PICES Conference for Early Career Scientists (p. 355). Membership (p. 367). Participants (p. 387). PICES Acronyms (p. 413). Acronyms (p. 415).
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.085 | 0.044 |
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".