The Bay o f Fundy- current program activities and management issues o f the Federal Natural Resource Departments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
and Heritage Canada (Parks Canada) have recently reviewed their current program activities and management issues pertaining to the Bay of Fundy. This talk summarizes the review, covering programs and rnanagment issues, connections between programs and issues, program gaps, opportunities for collaboration, and recommendations. Sixty-seven programs and projects pertaining to the Bay of Fundy are underway, with a concurrence of the general programlproject research areas with 18 of the 25 main issues identified at the 1996 multi-stakeholder Fundy Workshop (Percy et at. 1996). Opportunities for innovative collaboration, between departments and between the federal departments and their various partners in other sectors, for the Bay of Fundy, exist in the areas of: I) integrated coastal (zone) management; 2) hazards of chemicals, pathogens and sediments, especially from land-based activities; 3) hazards of chemicals that are air-borne; 4) hazards of introduced species; 5) macro-scale changes to the system; and 6) public education and participation. This survey is being completed and distributed as a working document (Wells 1998) of the Federal Natural Resource Departments Coordinating
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".