Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 49th Parallel divides the western Prairies between Canada and the United States, crossing the central part of the Williston basin and marking the International boundary that separates Saskatchewan from the States of Montana and North Dakota. Discoveries of oil in this area during the 1950s triggered widespread geological activity, and revealed significant differences of stratigraphical understanding on each side of the border. Problems seemed to arise from contrasts between ‘American' and ‘English' interpretations of stratigraphical method, particularly for the oil-producing zones of the Mississippian. This study analyzes the differing points of view, and presents historical reasons for them. Difficulties with stratigraphical method and nomenclature in the 1950s were quite real, becoming the subject in 1959 of a special AAPG-SEPM conference at Dallas. Had the delegates attending that meeting (including the present author) possessed a little more history, they would have known that an ‘American' or mineral-focused view of stratigraphy had originated in a German hard-rock mining terrane, principally through the teaching of Abraham Werner. From there, during the first years of the 19th century, it traveled via Scotland to the State of New York, where, from Amos Eaton's Rensselaer School at Troy, it spread to most of the newly-formed State geological surveys. Some years later, on the other hand, an ‘English' or ‘stratum-focused' view of stratified formations migrated across the Atlantic from the pastoral landscapes and gently inclined rock-formations of southern England, where mapping had tended to discount their mineral content in favor of their observable order and continuity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.007 |
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".