MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1601290812 · doi:10.7202/032920ar

Nature, Origin, and Age Relationships of Landscape Complexes in Southwestern Saskatchewan

2007· article· en· W1601290812 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
R W Klassen

Bibliographic record

VenueGéographie physique et Quaternaire · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's University
KeywordsBedrockGeologyGlacial periodMeltwaterPleistocenePaleontologyGeomorphologyFluvialTerrainPhysical geographyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Six landscape complexes are recognized in the Cypress Lake (72 F) and Wood Mountain (72 G) areas of southwestern Saskatchewan. The complexes are recognized by their geomorphology, geology, and processes of landscape formation. The relationships of these components are used to determine the relative ages of the complexes. The oldest complex designated “unglaciated bedrock terrain”, consists of mature landscapes developed in Late Cretaceous and Tertiary sediments. It was formed by fluvial and mass wasting processes under Late Tertiary arid to semi-arid climates. A rather similar complex, but with scattered drift residuals - chiefly glacial erratics, is called “bedrock terrain with residual drift”. This complex reflects similar Late Tertiary processes of landscape formation but was later affected by Pleistocene glaciation. A complex called “bedrock terrain and drift” resembles the older complexes except for a veneer of drift and local meltwater channels. Here, effects of the Late Wisconsinan glaciation are restricted to meltwater erosion, and the drift appears to predate this glaciation. The other three landscape complexes are: “first advance drift”, “interlobate drift” and “last advance drift”. These include terrain typical of the parts of the southern prairies covered by the Late Wisconsinan glacier.

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 score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score0.375

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations15
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGéographie physique et QuaternaireSame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207