MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051087195 · doi:10.1139/e03-083

What is a hot spring?

2003· article· en· W2051087195 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Allan Pentecost, Brian Jones, Robin W. Renaut

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiet and metabolism studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSpring (device)Hot springTerm (time)GeologyThermalCore temperatureEnvironmental scienceClimatologyMeteorologyGeographyPaleontologyThermodynamicsPhysicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The response of researchers to a questionnaire on the definitions of hot, thermal, warm, and cold springs is provided. Two important benchmarks are recognized, the human body temperature and the mean annual local air temperature. While no scheme can claim to provide an objective, unbiased classification, waters emerging with a temperature in excess of the core human body temperature of 36.7 °C should be defined as hot springs. The term "thermal spring" is not recommended as it cannot be defined satisfactorily for all springs. The term "warm spring" is not considered utilitarian.

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 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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.647
Threshold uncertainty score0.824

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations97
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Earth SciencesSame topicDiet and metabolism studiesFrench-language works237,207