MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2185429970

GEOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF SOME HISTORICAL BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES IN NEWFOUNDLAND

2005· article· en· W2185429970 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael T. King

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMaritime and Coastal Archaeology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoveArchaeologyQueen (butterfly)SiltstoneGeologyMegalithHistoryPaleontologyFaciesStructural basin
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several historic buildings and structures in Newfoundland contain stone as an integral or, at least functional/artistic, part of their design. Stone was examined in historic buildings in Corner Brook, Brigus, Harbour Grace and St. John’s, and rock walls were examined at the Queen’s Battery in St. John’s, in Brigus, and in Grates Cove. In Corner Brook, local limestone and glacial erratics have been used to construct walls and gate posts and imported cut and polished marble was used for the staircase in the Corner Brook Museum. The Queen’s Battery wall used local stone capped and faced with imported sandstone. The Presentation Convent in St. John’s is faced with imported (probably Irish) and Holyrood Granite. The Stone Barn in Brigus used stone from Kellys Island; local stone was used in Brigus for church foundations and retaining walls. The Conception Bay Museum used local stone for the foundations and a large amount of granite from the late 19 th century quarries at The Topsails in central Newfoundland. This indicates that the present building could not have been built in 1870 (as considered by some) as the quarries had not yet opened. At Grates Cove, the 18 th century walls are constructed from local siltstone fieldstones.

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 score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.159

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMaritime and Coastal ArchaeologyFrench-language works237,207