MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041799916 · doi:10.7202/020426ar

Cartographie géomorphologique appliquée au périglaciaire

2005· article· en· W2041799916 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Louis‐Edmond Hamelin

Bibliographic record

VenueCahiers de géographie du Québec · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlossaryRepresentation (politics)GeologyAction (physics)Section (typography)Computer scienceLinguisticsPhilosophyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The writer proposes a simple and practical set of symbols for use in the preparation of periglacial maps. These maps can he constructed rapidly and at modest cost. In a preliminary section dealing with cartographie principles, the writer proposes that jour aspects of periglacial studies he mapped ; phenomena, « conditions », regions, and aspects of applied periglacial studies. Attention will also he given to chronology. Symbolisation conforms to the following scheme : drawings or designs for phenomena, lines and curves for conditions, line patterns for regions, and letters to indicate aspects of applied periglacial studies. Colours can he used where more than one cold period has occurred. The writer proposes in Table I (in pocket) the use of more than one hundred symbols for the representation, on a 1:50,000 base map, of periglacial phenomena. The problems of classification of periglacial phenomena are also discussed, with the writer suggesting a classification based upon group of process. Among the categories included are : gelisolation, gelifraction, gelifluction, nivalisation, action of floating ice, gelifluviation, wind action and polygonation. The text ends with a glossary of periglacial terms.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.662
Threshold uncertainty score0.672

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0390.007

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCahiers de géographie du QuébecSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207