MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102783673 · doi:10.1139/e03-058

Travertine mounds of the Cave and Basin National Historic Site, Banff National Park

2003· article· en· W2102783673 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Stephen E. Grasby, Robert O. van Everdingen, J M Bednarski, Dwayne Lepitzki

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsBanff CentreBP (Canada)Geological Survey of Canada
FundersParks Canada
KeywordsCaveGeologySpring (device)National parkKarstStructural basinGypsumCalciteArchaeologyPaleontologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Cave and Basin National Historic Site is a fan-shaped travertine deposit associated with four thermal spring outlets. Tentative age dating of the travertine mound indicates growth initiated with onset of the late Holocene shift to more humid and cool climate conditions and suggests that the flow of thermal waters was limited during the Hypsithermal, which in turn places constraints on the evolutionary biology of endemic species in the spring system. Two large caves and one collapsed cave structure are developed within the deposit. Cave development is in response to both physical erosion of till underlying the travertine and acid gas attack of calcite that makes up the deposit. This process is buffered by formation of reaction crusts of gypsum on the interior cave walls. Only minor modern travertine growth occurs due to historic flow control measures. Understanding the flow of water through the historic site is critical for long-term preservation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.638
Threshold uncertainty score0.720

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations19
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Earth SciencesSame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207