Proceedings of the CSAS Peer-review of the Risk Assessment for Ship-Mediated Introductions of Aquatic Nonindigenous Species to the Great Lakes and the Canadian Arctic; March 1-2, 2011
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Draft research documents were developed to evaluate the biological risk associated with ship-mediated introductions of aquatic nonindigenous species to the Great Lakes and the Canadian Arctic. A meeting was held to peer review these draft documents according to the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) peer review process. The meeting was held March 1-2, 2011, in Burlington, Ontario. There were a total of 25 participants including the Centre of Expertise for Aquatic Risk Assessment (CEARA) Directorate, the ship-mediated risk assessment team leader and team members, and other individuals (from within and outside DFO Science) with relevant expertise in ship-mediated aquatic nonindigenous species, marine invasive species or the shipping industry in these regions. This document summarizes the discussions that took place during the workshop. \n \nThe peer review process resulted in changes to the methodology by introducing an environmental ‘survival’ factor for hull-mediated introductions and removing spread from the calculation of probability of introduction. Terminology associated with the risk assessment was changed to meet standardized definitions by CEARA and uncertainties associated with the steps of the assessment were also adjusted. The resulting changes to overall risk rankings were finalized and presented at the meeting. Further change (correction factor for hull size) will be completed in the future and incorporated into the national level risk assessment meeting which is scheduled to take place in early fall 2012.
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 | 0.034 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.014 |
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".