MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331186259 · doi:10.5840/raven20111870

Portage la Prairie, Manitoba

2011· article· en· W2331186259 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
James F. E. Croft

Bibliographic record

VenueRaven A Journal of Vexillology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyArchaeologyForestry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The flag of the City of Portage la Prairie is a Canadian pale design of green-white-green, with its coat of arms in its centre, five-eighths the height of the flag.The simple shield has a horizontal top and simply-curved sides forming a pointed "U" shape.It has a green field, crossed near the top and bottom by a wavy blue horizontal stripe bordered in white.In the centre are two wheat sheaves, side by side, in yellow with bands of red.Above the shield is a knight's helmet in blue with red and white details; around it and draping alongside the upper sides of the shield is mantling in green and white.Atop the helmet is a torse of white and green, atop that is a green mound with a circlet of three maple leaves in red, and above all is a Canada goose (Branta canadensis) in green and white with black details, rising in flight toward the hoist.Below the shield curves a yellow scroll curled at each end to show a red back, inscribed PROGRESS in black serifed letters. SYMBOLISM:The two wheat sheaves on green represent agriculture, an important local economic resource; they derive from the city's 1880 seal, as does the motto.The wavy blue and white stripes represent the Assiniboine River and Lake Manitoba.The first European explorers in this area were

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score0.345

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0540.008

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.220
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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueRaven A Journal of VexillologySame topicGeological formations and processesFrench-language works237,207