MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991276707 · doi:10.1029/2004eo360004

Reply [to “Comment on ‘Coupling semantics and science in earthquake research’”]

2004· article· en· W1991276707 on OpenAlexaff
Kelin Wang, Timothy H. Dixon

Bibliographic record

VenueEos · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSlip (aerodynamics)Meaning (existential)Semantics (computer science)EpistemologyTheoretical physicsComputer sciencePhilosophyPhysicsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We thank Thorne Lay and Susan Schwartz for their comment on our Forum article (Eos, 85(18),4 May 2004, p. 180). They agree with our main point that slip rates of a fault should not be confused with stress conditions or frictional properties, but they criticize our use of the word “locked” and the interseismic deformation model we used to illustrate a conceptual error. We agree with Lay and Schwartz that the term “locked” has connotations beyond purely kinematical and that “no slip” may be more appropriate. The present reply is to further discuss the meaning of the simple deformation model.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0060.004
Research integrity0.0460.044
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.010

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.250 · 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
GenreCommentary

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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEosSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207