9781003477518_10.1201_9781003477518-2.pdf
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review remains one of the most cited sources in marine science and oceanography. The ever-increasing interest in work in oceanography and marine biology and its relevance to global environmental issues, especially global climate change and its impacts, creates a demand for authoritative refereed reviews summarising and synthesising the results of both historical and recent research. Six of the ten peer-reviewed contributions in Volume 62 are available to read Open Access via the webpage and on OAPEN. If you are interested in submitting a review for consideration for publication in OMBAR, please email the new co-Editors in Chief, Dr Peter Todd (dbspat@nus.edu.sg) and Dr Bayden Russell (brussell@hku.hk). Supplementary material is provided online on the Support Materials tab, for Reviews 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. Volume 62 features a review of the biology, ecology and conservation threats to the Iberian harbour porpoise; a look at the potential risk to Mediterranean cetaceans and sea turtles from floating marine macro litter; an overview of the recent history and physical environment of corals in the Andaman Sea; an exploration of the population biology of Snapper fish in South Australia; and a review of historical killings of small cetaceans in the Northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea, among others. An international Editorial Board ensures global relevance and expert peer review, with editors from Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Ireland, Singapore and the UK. The series volumes find a place in the libraries of not only marine laboratories and oceanographic institutes but also universities worldwide.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.885 | 0.890 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".