Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Transboundary Resources Assessment Committee (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. While stock assessment results are needed routinely to serve the management system, it is not practical to evaluate the assessment approach each time the assessment is conducted. Instead, reviews of the assessment approach (benchmark assessments) are conducted periodically, generally at a separate meeting. The previous two TRAC benchmark reviews for cod were conducted in February 2002 and in 2009 (January- data meeting, April- model review). At present, the USA assessment for the whole of Georges Bank is conducted independently from the TRAC assessment of eastern Georges Bank. There is some concern that differing assessment approaches may make reconciliation of results difficult. Objectives This meeting will have two primary objectives: 1) to review the assessment framework for the Eastern Georges Bank cod management unit (5Zjm for Canada), with the agreed benchmark
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 | 0.007 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.204 | 0.188 |
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".