MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1575593874 · doi:10.7202/032972ar

The Fluvial Reworking of Late Pleistocene Drift, Squamish River Drainage Basin, Southwestern British Colombia

2007· article· en· W1575593874 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
G R Brooks

Bibliographic record

VenueGéographie physique et Quaternaire · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil erosion and sediment transport
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSimon Fraser University
KeywordsTributaryGeologyFluvialPleistoceneGlacial periodQuaternaryGeomorphologyDrainage basinStructural basinArchaeologyPaleontologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reworked glacial sediment(s) (RGS) represents the component of paraglacial sedimentation derived from the fluvial reworking of late Pleistocene glacial deposits in the postglacial landscape. In Squamish River drainage basin, southwestern British Columbia, the primary source of the RGS transferred to Squamish Valley is fluvial incision into valley-fill deposits in the five major tributary valleys of the watershed. The total volume of RGS transferred to Squamish Valley is 415 x 106m3. The volume of RGS from the individual tributary valleys range from 6 to 130 x 106m3 with valley morphology and late Quaternary history being the important controls upon the specific amount. Geomorphic evidence indicates that the bulk of the RGS was contributed to Squamish Valley thousands of years ago. The transfer of RGS continues at a very low residual rate in the contemporary landscape. RGS appear to represent a minor portion of the Squamish valley-fill and a small component of the postglacial sediments stored in Squamish Valley.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.215

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGéographie physique et QuaternaireSame topicSoil erosion and sediment transportFrench-language works237,207