Note d’accompagnement des tables de correspondances entre les Habitats d’Intérêt Communautaire (HIC) marins et les autres systèmes de classification d’habitats benthiques marins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce travail avait pour objectif d’identifier les correspondances possibles entre Habitats d’Intérêt Communautaire (HIC) marins (Tableau 1) et unités d’habitats des typologies nationales (NatHab-Med et NatHab-Atl), typologies EUNIS (EUNIS version 2022) et listes des conventions de mers régionales (OSPAR et Barcelone) en se basant sur la réinterprétation nationale des Habitats d’Intérêt Communautaire (HIC) marins (de Bettignies et al., 2021) et les descriptions des unités d’habitats des typologies nationales (La Rivière et al., 2021 ; 2022). Il constitue une mise à jour du travail d’établissement des correspondances réalisé en 2012 (Michez et al., 2012) en suivant globalement la même méthodologie. Cette note apporte des précisions sur le cadre méthodologique suivi pour établir ces correspondances et sur la structuration des données. Pour chaque HIC, des explications sont données pour assurer une bonne compréhension des correspondances établies, notamment en ce qui concerne les conditions de correspondances résultant du travail de réinterprétation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.006 |
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".