Indicateurs de suivi du MPO pour l'aire marine protégée du Banc-des-Américains : révision, choix des mesures et état des connaissances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following the 2018 peer review of DFO’s ecological monitoring indicators for the Banc-des Américains Marine Protected Area (MPA), a DFO Scientific Monitoring Committee (BDA SMC) was established. The committee’s work has included finalizing the choice of indicators and associated measures, calculating the results, and identifying methods for assessing status and trends in the MPA. To provide information on the various indicators, each measure used was described and the rationale for its use was explained. The spatial and temporal scales and the databases utilized in the calculations were specified. The results for the available time series were presented and the historical trends (pre-MPA) were described. The status of all indicators and measures for which data of sufficient quantity and quality are available was assessed. Two methods are proposed for assessing the status of the indicators and their associated measurements: anomalies (deviation from the mean of a reference period) and fixed thresholds. The status of the indicators is described using three categories: (1) Good/Low/Small change; (2) Medium/Moderate change; and (3) Poor/High/Important change. The limitations associated with the indicators, surveys and associated databases were reviewed. Lastly, a list of priority indicators, which will be reported on more frequently and consistently, was proposed.
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 | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".