MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021840189 · doi:10.14311/gi.1.3

Development of Open Source Tools that support the CCOG Resolution

2006· article· en· W2021840189 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jim Sutherland

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoinformatics FCE CTU · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeomaticsPlan (archaeology)Library scienceSurveyorOpen sourceRemote sensingResolution (logic)Computer scienceCartographyGeographyPolitical scienceArchaeologySoftware

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

National Geo-Referencing Initiative. The Canadian Council on Geomatics (CCOG) passed a resolution in March 2005 wherebyeach province/territory agreed to develop and implement a plan to require geo-referencingnew legal surveys according to the principles and standards set out in the resolution. MichaelO’Sullivan, former Surveyor General of Canada, initiated the resolution which took over fiveyears of research, development, analysis and discussion before being passed.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.071
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: Software · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.071
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0070.011
Open science0.0070.010
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.022

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.182 · 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
GenreSoftware

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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeoinformatics FCE CTUSame topicGeological Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207