MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107345031 · doi:10.3138/m6n0-p214-2811-911r

Mountain Cartography in Slovenia

2001· article· en· W2107345031 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCartographica The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicRegional Development and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMountaineeringGeographyCartographyPopulationTopographic map (neuroanatomy)Regional sciencePhysical geographyArchaeologyDemographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Slovenia has a hilly character, and a high percentage of the population participates in mountaineering as an outdoor sport. Mountaineering enthusiasts produced the first mountain maps. It wasn't until 1969, however, that official mountain maps were published under the auspices of the National Mountaineering Association of Slovenia. The official mountain maps were initially in high demand because topographic maps produced by the military were generally unavailable throughout Slovenia – a situation that has completely changed since then. Today, the use of mountain maps is in decline because of competition from other high-quality topographic maps that are more readily available. The future viability of Slovenian mountain mapping as a separate program depends on the implementation of new technology and the development of new products that are relevant to mountaineers.

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.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.707
Threshold uncertainty score0.488

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.230 · 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