Background Transboundary Resources Assessment Committee Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank Herring Benchmark Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The TRAC was established in 1998 to peer review assessments of transboundary resources in the Georges Bank area and thus to ensure that the management efforts of both Canada and USA, pursued either independently or cooperatively, are founded on a common understanding of resource status. Prior to 2003, scientists from both countries had participated in each other’s peer review of the Gulf of Maine herring assessments but there has not been a joint peer review meeting. During the 10- 14 February 2003 meeting, the TRAC considered the assessment framework for the Gulf of Maine herring assessments. At that meeting, consensus was reached on how to deal with the stock complex and management units. It was deemed necessary to undertake an evaluation of the entire complex with subsequent consideration of the individual components. Evaluation of the relative proportions of the biomass between the inshore Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank should be considered to give guidance for the individual components. It was also established that surveys indices from the NMFS bottom trawl survey would be divided into and treated as two distinct time periods pre-1985 and 1985present. Despite considerable investigation of model formulations for the assessment, a number of issues remained to be resolved. It was noted that to verify and compare models, new and revised data need to be considered. Thus a continuation of the hydroacoustic survey is likely to elucidate trends in biomass. Improved age determinations for older fish should give a better indication of the total mortality in the stock.
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 | 0.046 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.005 |
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".