Geoheritage 2. Examples of Geoeducation, Geoconservation and Geo-rescue Projects in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three case studies presented here outline the progress of projects recently initiated to improve public appreciation of the diversity, complexity and significance of Earth history, with an emphasis on the importance of such knowledge to humanity. Work on two of these projects has highlighted the paucity of legal protection for significant geological records as well as the frequent loss of basic geoscience data during construction-related landscape modification. These three case studies in promoting geoheritage awareness and geoconservation reinforce the need for the Canadian geoscience community to seek improved legal instruments for the protection of sites of geological and geomorphological importance, and to seek improved procedures for the documentation of information that too commonly is irretrievably lost during major construction projects. SOMMAIRE Les trois etudes de cas presentees cidessous, permettent d’illustrer les progres de projets recents visant a ameliorer l’appreciation du public des notions de diversite, de complexite et des consequences de l’histoire de la Terre, en insistant sur l’importance de ce savoir pour l’humanite. Le travail realise dans deux de ces projets a fait ressortir le manque de protection legale des archives geologiques d’importance ainsi que la perte frequente de donnees geoscientifiques de base lors de travaux de construction alterant le paysage. En faisant la promotion de la sensibilisation a l’heritage geoscientifique et a sa conservation, ces trois projets renfor-cent la necessite faite a la communaute geoscientifique canadienne de rechercher de meilleurs instruments legaux de protection des sites geologiques et geomorphologiques d’importance, et de rechercher de meilleurs procedures de documentation de l’information, laquelle est trop sou-vent irremediablement perdue a l’occasion de grands projets de construction.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".