Public geoscience to reduce exploration risk: new methods to characterize the basement beneath geological cover and to address community engagement in the Cariboo-Chilcotin region of British Columbia<sup>1</sup>This article introduces a series of papers published in this Special Issue on the theme of <i>New insights in Cordilleran Intermontane geoscience: reducing exploration risk in the mountain pine beetle-affected area, British Columbia</i>. James Haggart is the Special Issue guest editor.<sup>2</sup>Geological Survey of Canada Contribution 20100476.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mineral and petroleum exploration in the Cariboo-Chilcotin region of British Columbia is hampered by widespread and extensive cover of Pleistocene glacial deposits and Tertiary volcanic successions. Seeing through this geological cover is critical to reducing exploration risk and enhancing exploration activity. Also critical to exploration is effective community engagement, hopefully resulting in endorsement and support for exploration initiatives. The forests in the Cariboo-Chilcotin region have been extensively destroyed by an infestation of the mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae , disrupting established communities and greatly affecting economic activity in the region. Governments of all levels recognized that geological exploration activity could provide a ready and appreciable stimulus to economic activity, but only if local communities endorsed such programs. Relatively little oil and gas exploration and research has taken place in the region, and its effects have been poorly understood locally. Consequently, an extended effort was undertaken to establish an integrated geoscience program for the Cariboo-Chilcotin region, focused on mineral and petroleum exploration-related research and coupled with engagement with local communities to inform them of exploration benefits and risks. This Introduction to the “Mountain Pine Beetle” Special Issue of Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences provides a brief overview of the scientific papers included in the issue and also a review of the community engagement process that was undertaken to establish working relationships with First Nations and other communities in the region.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".