MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120441754 · doi:10.7202/021195ar

Géomorphologie des eskers abitibiens

2005· article· fr· W2120441754 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Michel Allard

Bibliographic record

VenueCahiers de géographie du Québec · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhysicsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La région étudiée se situe dans le Nord-Ouest québécois entre les latitudes 48° et 49° 30' N. et les longitudes 77° 15' et 79° W. Les eskers dans cette région atteignent des dimensions de l'ordre de 100 km de longueur et de 50 m de hauteur. Entre les eskers s'étend une plaine argileuse formée par sédimentation au fond du lac glaciaire Barlow-Ojibway. Certains éléments de structure du socle précambrien ont influencé la mise en place des eskers de deux façons : parfois en leur faisant barrière, parfois en les canalisant le long de lignes de failles. Les modifications morphologiques des eskers par l'action des vagues révèlent que le lac Barlow-Ojibway a connu trois étapes : un niveau maximum à 366 m (1200 pieds), un retrait graduel de 366 à 330 m (1100 pieds) et un dernier niveau entre 330 et 320 m (1050 pieds). Le retrait des eaux lacustres fut suivi d'une reprise éolienne tardiglaciaire des sables de plage et des sables fluvioglaciaires. Six types morphologiques d'eskers sont distingués à l'aide de l'analyse factorielle et cinq de ces types sont associés à des modes respectifs de mise en place. L'étude démontre les aspects particuliers du plus important esker de la région, appelé « esker de Matagami », qui se révèle être en fait une importante forme d'accumulation interlobaire.

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 score0.236
Threshold uncertainty score0.475

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations20
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCahiers de géographie du QuébecSame topicGeological formations and processesFrench-language works237,207