MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1932151850 · doi:10.7202/032740ar

Geology from Engineering, Urban or Otherwise

2007· article· en· W1932151850 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
P. F. Karrow

Bibliographic record

VenueGéographie physique et Quaternaire · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyStratigraphyQuaternaryEngineering geologyScale (ratio)Mining engineeringArchaeologyEarth sciencePaleontologyGeographyCartographyTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exhortations of the mid-nineteenth century to take advantage of construction activities as sources of geological information have been paid heed only occasionally. While some advantage has been taken of information from engineering activity, most is unrecorded geologically. Geological study of urban areas is complicated by many difficulties and comprehensive treatment requires a permanent staff with appropriate experience. Even though geological data have clearly demonstrable practical use in better use of land resources, urban geology should embrace both practical and curiousity-based research. Thus far, opportunities to gain enormous amounts of information of great practical and scientific value have been commonly ignored. Toronto is Canada's largest and geologically most famous city. The fame is based on its unique Quaternary stratigraphy, which includes lllinoian, Sangamonian, and Wisconsinan deposits, many of which are fossiliferous. Tragic losses of important information about its Quaternary history occur nearly continuously as large scale surface mining continues and little record of the temporary exposures is kept.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0570.020

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGéographie physique et QuaternaireSame topicGeological Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207