Geological Survey of Canada response to the Summary Report of the Review Committee on GSC'S Minerals Geoscience Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Geological Survey of Canada accepts most of the Canadian Geoscience Council Review Committee's recommendations and is already acting on some of them. Integration of mapping and metallogenic activities should be facilitated by the new Project Approval System, which will help achieve the cultural change called for by the Committee. We agree that there is a need to recruit new young scientists, and that digital data bases need to be made available, and we are active in both areas. Increased funding for minerals research is being sought; some new funds have been attained for the 2000-2003 period. The GSC is grateful for the useful insights and recommendations provided by the Review Committee. Resume La Commission geologique du Canada approuve la plupart des recommandations du Comite de revision et a deja pris des mesures a l'egard de certaines d'entre-elles. Ainsi, le nouveau systeme d'approbation des propositions de projets devrait-il faciliter l'integration des activites dans les domaines de la cartographie et de la metallogenie, favorisant ainsi le changement de culture administrative souhaite par le Comite. Nous convenons qu'il est necessaire de recruter de jeunes scientifiques, que des bases de donnees numeriques doivent etre disponibles, et nous y travaillons. Nous explorons diverses possibilites d'accroitre nos budgets de recherches minerales; de nouveaux modes de financement sont deja en place pour la periode 2000 a 2003. La CGC est remercie le Comite de revision pour les idees nouvelles et ses recommandations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".