MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014479660 · doi:10.1029/2009eo480003

Nonlinear Geophysics: Why We Need It

2009· article· en· W2014479660 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEos · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of TorontoCanadian Space AgencyUniversity of OttawaUniversité du Québec à MontréalMcGill UniversityUniversity of CalgaryYork UniversityGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNonlinear systemHierarchyGeophysicsFocus (optics)European unionGeologyPolitical scienceEarth sciencePhysicsLawEconomicsInternational tradeOpticsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Few geoscientists would deny that effects are often sensitively dependent on causes, or that their amplification is commonly so strong as to give rise to qualitatively new “emergent” properties, or that geostructures are typically embedded one within another in a hierarchy. Starting in the 1980s, a growing number felt the need to underline the absolute importance of such nonlinearity through workshops and conferences. Building on this, the European Geosciences Union (EGU) organized a nonlinear processes (NP) section in 1990; AGU established a nonlinear geophysics (NG) focus group in 1997; and both unions began collaborating on an academic journal, Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics, in 1994.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.210 · 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