Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following our long-standing tradition, and in keeping with our sense of the absurd, the 2009 Spring Technical Meeting was held once again in the depths of the Newfoundland winter at the remarkable Johnson GEOCENTRE on scenic Signal Hill in St. John's.The 2009 meeting featured a thematic session entitled Exploring the Oceans: Geology, Technology, and Politics.In an era of global warming, melting ice-caps and diminishing energy supplies, attention is increasingly directed to the exploration of the ocean basins and distant continental shelves.The definition and mapping of the latter have become important issues for many nations, including Canada, with its incredibly long coastlines.This thematic symposium looked at the efforts underway to explore and define these regions, assess their resources, and potentially develop them.In addition to geological aspects, we were interested in the technological innovations needed to accomplish these goals, and the political ramifications of pursuing them.In addition, the 2009 meeting featured a thematic session entitled "The Central Mineral Belt of Labrador at Fifty".About 50 years ago, the Central Mineral Belt of Labrador was defined as a "uranium metallogenic province" by A. P. Beavan.It is now the second most important area of uranium exploration in Canada, and potentially the site of several economic deposits.This session looked at what we now know about the geology and mineral resources of this region, and what we still need to discover and understand.There was also a general session with presentations of papers on an eclectic range of topics, as is normally the case at our meetings.GAC Newfoundland and Labrador is pleased to have once again hosted an interesting and diverse meeting, and we are equally pleased to see the abstracts published in Atlantic Geology.Our thanks to all of the speakers and the editorial staff of the journal.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.455 | 0.303 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".