MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2182164281 · doi:10.4095/214022

Preliminary drilling results from the Pemberton Valley, British Columbia

2003· report· en· W2182164281 on OpenAlexaffabout
K. Simpson, M V Stasiuk, John J. Clague, Stephen G. Evans, Pierre A. Friele

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDrillingArchaeologyGeologyGeographyEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Mount Meager volcanic complex experiences frequent landslides and is a potentially active volcano that last erupted 2350 years ago. The combination of loose, altered volcanic material and steep topography is thought to be responsible for the significant landslide hazard. Sediments obtained from drilling in the Pemberton Valley record both landslide events and volcanic eruptions from the Mount Meager volcanic complex over the past 6500 years. Three major debris-flow deposits were identified, ranging from 0.6 to 8 m in thickness. Two of the debris-flow deposits were dated at approximately 2600 and 6200 years ago. The third debris-flow deposit is inferred to be approximately 4000 years old. The remainder of the drill-core sediments record typical meandering-river-valley sedimentation. Long-term sedimentation rates for the Pemberton Valley range from 1 to 7 mm per year. This paper is intended as an update for the Pemberton Valley landowners, rather than as a detailed scientific communication.

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)0.001
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 score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations3
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis→French-language works237,207→