Bibliographic record
Abstract
morues. 3. Les arguments "bass sur le bon sens", qui soutiennent que l'limination slective des phoques aura "videmment" un effet bnfique sur les pches, ont pour prmisse une vision mythique des prdateurs qui n'est pas soutenue par la plupart de l'vidence scientifique disponible. 4. La recherche effectue sur d'autres pches maritimes a indiqu que la complexit des rseaux trophiques marins, et la diversit des rgimes alimentaires des phoques, font qu'un nombre plus lev de phoques peut parfois avoir des effets bnfiques sur les stocks de poissons commerciaux. 5. De plus, la recherche rcente sur les systmes terrestres indique que les prdateurs en bout de chane peuvent avoir un impact positif significatif sur le nombre d'herbivores, en rduisant le nombre des prdateurs plus petits. 6. L'agenda politique canadien, pour faire face l'croulement des stocks de morues, a volu et comprend maintenant l'abattage subventionn des phoques et la suppression de rapports internes qui contredisent la positi
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.004 |
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".