CONSIDERATIONS FOR A NEW STOCK ASSESSMENT TERMS OF REFERENCE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The draft terms of reference for the groundfish stock assessment and review process for 2011-2012 (Attachment 1) is a revised version of the previous terms of reference with proposed edits from the Scientific and Statistical Committee. While this draft of the new terms of reference addresses many relevant issues that have emerged in recent years, the Council staff notes a few issues that might benefit from further discussion and consideration. Council staff is recommending that Council advisors and Council members consider the following issues when recommending or deciding a final version of the stock assessment terms of reference. • Whiting Assessment Review: It is possible this version of the terms of reference may be used to guide the Pacific whiting assessment and review process in 2011 and possibly 2012, if all of the necessities of the international treaty with Canada are not fully in place. Given the problems associated with the two competing assessment situation in 2010, and the potential problems of conducting a negotiation process with representatives of Canada at some point later this year if formal international solutions are not in place, should there be some consideration for the greater specificity in review process for the Pacific whiting assessment in the new terms of reference than what is shown in a footnote in Appendix A?
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 | 0.287 | 0.573 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.031 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.019 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.041 | 0.045 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.019 |
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".