Specimen Collections from Abraham Gesner’s Geological Survey of New Brunswick (1838 to 1842)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abraham Gesner (1797–1864), the first government-appointed geologist in a British colony, developed a collection of rocks, minerals and fossils organized for scientific study that was more than simply a collector’s curiosity cabinet. While his public museum was meant to show a variety of specimens representing the geological sciences, his New Brunswick collection was built largely for reference and documentation to support the geological survey of the Province that he conducted from 1838 to 1842. The collection of Gesner’s specimens at the New Brunswick Museum can be matched to the localities that he visited and described in his five reports, published from 1839 to 1843. Gesner’s collection of New Brunswick specimens likely represents the second oldest government geological survey collection in the British Empire.RÉSUMÉAbraham Gesner (1797–1864), premier géologue nommé par un gouvernement dans une colonie britannique, a constitué une collection de roches, de minéraux et de fossiles cataloguée aux fins d’études scientifiques : bien plus qu’une simple chambre des merveilles. Ouvert au public, son musée avait pour but d’exposer une variété de spécimens représentatifs des sciences géologiques. Quant à sa collection de spécimens du Nouveau Brunswick, elle a principalement été amassée aux fins de référence et de documentation pour appuyer l’étude géologique de la province qu’il avait menée de 1838 à 1842. La collection de Gesner exposée au musée du Nouveau Brunswick contient des spécimens recueillis dans les localités qu’il a visitées et décrites dans cinq rapports parus entre 1839 et 1843. La collection de spécimens du Nouveau Brunswick de Gesner occupe vraisemblablement le deuxième rang des plus anciennes collections de l’Empire britannique amassées à la suite d’une étude géologique commandée par un gouvernement.[Traduit par la redaction]
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".