Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern geomorphology was founded in the nineteenth century as an exercise of historical interpretation of landscapes. After the mid-twentieth century it dominantly became a quest to understand the processes by which landscapes are modified. This focused attention on the measurement of sediment fluxes on synoptic timescales and on a reductionist, Newtonian programme of construction of low-order theories about those fluxes, largely imported from engineering science. The period also saw the emergence of an applied geomorphology. Toward the end of the twentieth century the subject was dramatically transformed by improved technologies for remote sensing and surveying of Earth’s surface, the advent of personal computation and of large-scale computation, and important developments of absolute dating techniques. These technical innovations in turn promoted recognition of geomorphology as a ‘system science’ and facilitated the reintegration of tectonics into geomorphology, opening the way for a renewed consideration of the history of the landscape. Finally, increasing recognition of the dominance of human agency in contemporary modification of Earth’s terrestrial surface has become a significant theme. Important influences on the continuing development of the subject will include the search for physically sound laws for material fluxes; reconciling geomorphological information and process representations across spatial and temporal scales, in both observation and theory; comprehending complexity in geomorphological processes and landform histories; incorporating the geomorphological role of living organisms, particularly micro-organisms; understanding the role of climate in geomorphology, both in the contemporary changing climate and in the long term; and fully admitting the now dominant role of humans as geomorphic agents. Geomorphology is simultaneously developing in diverse directions: on one hand, it is becoming a more rigorous geophysical science — a significant part of a larger earth science discipline; on another, it is becoming more concerned with human social and economic values, with environmental change, conservation ethics, with the human impact on environment, and with issues of social justice and equity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".