MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2558857923 · doi:10.4043/27377-ms

Geohazards in Deepwater Sectors Offshore Newfoundland and Labrador Available for Parcel Nomination in 2016-2019

2016· article· en· W2558857923 on OpenAlexaffabout
David J. W. Piper, Francky Saint‐Ange, K MacKillop, D C Campbell, D. Mosher, Harunur Rashid

Bibliographic record

VenueArctic Technology Conference · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyGeohazardSubmarine pipelineBathymetryOceanographyStructural basinGeomorphologyLandslide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Several deep-water sectors offshore Newfoundland and Labrador are available for parcel nomination in the next few years. This paper summarizes the current availability of geohazard information from Geological Survey of Canada (GSC) data holdings, Open Files and published papers. It presents background geological information on controls on geohazards, and summarizes the significance of existing published geological and geotechnical data. It focuses on sectors NL01-LS, NL02-LS (southern Labrador Slope), NL02-EN (northern Orphan Basin), and NL01-SEN (Carson and Salar basins), with brief mention of NL-01-SN. It is based on field surveys by the GSC in the past decade, including multibeam bathymetry, high-resolution seismic, and piston cores. The information is applicable to E&P companies considering nominating parcels or submitting bids for leases and to the regulator as a guide to geohazards and sea-floor constraints to exploration and production.

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)0.003
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 score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score0.343

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.196 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArctic Technology ConferenceSame topicGeological formations and processesFrench-language works237,207