GROUNDFISH ADVISORY SUBPANEL REPORT ON SCIENCE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE NEXT GROUNDFISH MANAGEMENT CYCLE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Groundfish Advisory Subpanel (GAP) received a presentation from Dr. Michelle McClure on science improvements for the next groundfish management cycle. The GAP also reviewed the STAR Panels ’ recommendations under this agenda item.. Generally, the GAP understands the Council has to prioritize science needs and improvements, taking into consideration the recommendations by the STAR Panels, science centers and Scientific and Statistical Subcommittee, but request the Council concentrate on changes and suggestions that have the most benefit to the industry. Thus, our recommendation in September 2011 (Agenda Item G.10.b, Supplemental GAP Report) still stands. Briefly, we requested four workshops: 1) A workshop on transboundary stocks; 2) one on the B0 harvest management framework; 3) one to review historical catch reconstructions; and 4) one to develop techniques (non-extractive) to survey Cowcod Conservation Areas. That statement is attached for your review. We understand there are budgetary concerns at all levels of government (including Canada, in the case of transboundary stocks), but fiscal concerns also affect every harvester, processor and community when it comes to operating small businesses. The GAP supports these improvements and believes they will be the most productive at making the industry and management process more efficient. It is also the GAP’s understanding that a workshop will be held to review stock assessments and the stock assessment process. We request industry members also be included in this workshop, as we reiterate the collective knowledge of the fishing industry will certainly aid conveners and participants of these workshops.
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 | 0.027 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.118 | 0.052 |
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".