MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035509585 · doi:10.1111/1467-985x.00275

Communicating the Risks Arising from Geohazards

2003· article· en· W2035509585 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Michael Rosenbaum, M. G. Culshaw

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (Statistics in Society) · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSeismology and Earthquake Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilTrent UniversityBritish Geological SurveyNottingham Trent University
KeywordsGeohazardTerminologyNatural (archaeology)Process (computing)Common groundRisk analysis (engineering)Outcome (game theory)Risk managementBusinessEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementComputer scienceGeographyEngineeringPsychologySocial psychologyEnvironmental scienceLinguisticsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Construction on, or in, the ground is affected by uncertainty. This includes the inherent variability of the ground itself, the effect of natural and human processes on the ground and the difficulties that are associated with the management and implementation of any construction works. The risk is considered to be in two parts: the probability of occurrence of a geohazard and the effect that this will have on the outcome of the project. Geohazards are determined as part of the ground investigation process, the principles of which are well established. Nevertheless uncertainty remains and communication between the professions and with the public is not always effective. Barriers are created by unfamiliar terminology and a lack of a forum for education and exchange of views. It is argued that the public must be continually involved—not only as recipients, but also as contributors.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.121
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.121
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.253 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations41
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (Statistics in Society)Same topicSeismology and Earthquake StudiesFrench-language works237,207