MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2314700021 · doi:10.1071/aseg2006ab162

GeoSciML: Enabling the Exchange of Geological Map Data

2006· article· en· W2314700021 on OpenAlexaff
Bruce Simons, Éric Boisvert, Boyan Brodaric, Simón Cox, Tim Duffy, Bruce R. Johnson, J.L. Laxton, Steve Richard

Bibliographic record

VenueASEG Extended Abstracts · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTestbedGeologic mapXMLData exchangeUnified Modeling LanguageGeological surveyComputer scienceData model (GIS)DatabaseFeature (linguistics)GeologyData miningWorld Wide WebProgramming languageGeophysicsArtificial intelligenceGeomorphologySoftware

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The CGI data model working group have established an initial geology data model and XML based exchange language to accommodate geological map data, referred to as GeoSciML. The language is based on prior work carried out at North American, European and Australian geological survey and research organisations. Unified Modelling Language (UML) has been used as a design aid for capturing the geological concepts and their properties. The UML model has then been converted to the GML-conformant GeoSciML.The design of GeoSCiML meets the short-term goal of accommodating the geoscience information presented on geological maps, as well as being fully extensible to include the full range of geological concepts covered by the geosciences. To demonstrate the ability of GeoSciML to deliver data via web feature services, a small subset has been selected as a testbed. This testbed will deliver lithostratigraphic units, boreholes, faults, contacts and compound materials from different national geological surveys.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.007

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations33
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueASEG Extended AbstractsSame topicGeological Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207