MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Part of the History of the Origin of Transform Faults

2011· article· en· W1975618746 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
A. M. Coode

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth Sciences History · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSeismology and Earthquake Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPresentation (obstetrics)Interpretation (philosophy)Newcastle upon tyneHistoryGraduate studentsArt historyGeologyGenealogyComputer scienceSociologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At least two people came up with the idea for transform faults at roughly the same time. One was a world-renowned Canadian geophysicist, Tuzo Wilson, and the other myself, a graduate student working with Keith Runcorn in Britain. Wilson presented his thoughts about the faulting of ridges at a colloquium in the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne in February 1965, which I attended. After the presentation, we discussed the correct interpretation of the mechanism. I suggested that we publish our ideas in parallel and let the scientific community decide which was correct. Wilson published my ideas, as did I.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.154 · 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

Citations16
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarth Sciences HistorySame topicSeismology and Earthquake StudiesFrench-language works237,207