Geoheritage 1. Geodiversity: A New Paradigm for Valuing and Conserving Geoheritage
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The term ‘geodiversity’ was first used in 1993 as the geological equivalent of biodiversity. It has gained in international acceptance and usage in recent years, and now warrants the status of a geological paradigm. Geodiversity forms the basis for the selection of geoconservation sites, which should be chosen to represent the geodiversity of a country, province or region. The objectives and methods of geoconservation vary, depending on which element of geodiversity is being considered. For example, the formal protection of static geological and geomorphological sites needs to be supported by legislation, but geoconservation of landscapes, soils and physical processes in the wider landscape is best promoted through both, policy and partnership approaches. SOMMAIRE Le terme a ete utilise la premiere fois en 1993 comme equivalent geologique du terme biodiversite. Il a ete accepte au niveau international ces dernieres annees, et c'est maintenant un paradigme geologique. La geodiversite constitue le critere de base de selection de sites de geoconservation representant la geodiversite d'un pays, d'une province ou d'une region. Les objectifs et les methodes de geoconservation varient selon l'element de geodiversite considere. Par exemple, la protection en l'etat de sites geologiques et geomorphologiques doit etre faite par legislation, alors que la geoconservation de paysages, de sols et de processus physiques au sein d'un cadre panoramique plus large est plus efficace par une approche integree de reglements et de partenariats.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it