MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1815808211 · doi:10.1139/cjes-2013-0175

John Tuzo Wilson: a man who moved mountains

2014· article· en· W1815808211 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
G. F. West, R. M. Farquhar, G. D. Garland, H. C. Halls, Lawrence W. Morley, R. Don Russell

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaEarthgenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlate tectonicsTributeGeologyTectonicsEarth scienceHistoryEnvironmental ethicsArchaeologyPaleontologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fifty years ago, the world’s Earth Scientists experienced the so-called “Revolution in the Earth Sciences”. In the decade from 1960 to 1970, a massive convergence took place from many diverse and contradictory theories about the tectonic processes operating on Earth (then loosely called “mountain building”) to a single widely accepted paradigm now called Plate Tectonics. A major player in leading the international “Revolution” was Canadian geophysicist J. Tuzo Wilson. This tribute reviews how he helped define and promote the Plate Tectonic paradigm, and also, from 1946 to 1967, how he led a rapid expansion of the role of geophysics in Canadian and international earth science. Wilson was a controversial figure before and during the “Revolution”, but his influence was large. It was not coincidental that earth science research in Canada grew by 1964 to the point where the National Research Council of Canada could add the Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences to its group of Canadian research journals.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.854
Threshold uncertainty score0.290

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.007

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences→Same topicGeological and Geochemical Analysis→French-language works237,207→