Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aerial photographs of Chubb Crater, a striking 3.4 km-wide circular basin in the far north of Quebec, led the Ontario prospector Fred W. Chubb to think it might be an extinct volcano, and possibly the site of a diamond-bearing diatreme. V. Ben Meen, the Director of the Royal Ontario Museum of Geology and Mineralogy in Toronto, however, suspected it was an impact crater caused by a meteorite. Meen led two expeditions to the crater in 1950 and 1951. Despite early opposition and the initial absence of corroborative field evidence, he held on to a persistent belief in the crater's meteoritic origin. Later fieldwork ultimately provided strong evidence in support of this view. The discovery of the crater led to the development of a program at the Dominion Observatory in Ottawa to search for additional impact craters on the Canadian Shield, and the development of valuable criteria by which they could be authenticated. The craters discovered through the program fit well on the Baldwin curve relating crater depth to diameter, and lent strong support to the argument for the relationship between the meteoritic origin of lunar craters and terrestrial impact structures. Chubb Crater is of historical importance because it was the first meteorite crater to be recognized in Canada, and the first anywhere to be authenticated in the absence of associated meteorites.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".