MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2792312302 · doi:10.4095/287167

Geotechnical database and descriptions of permafrost monitoring sites established 2006-2010 in the northern Mackenzie Corridor, Northwest Territories

2010· report· en· W2792312302 on OpenAlexaffabout
S A Wolfe, Sharon L. Smith, J Chartrand, Steve V. Kokelj, Michael J. Palmer, Christopher W. Stevens

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPermafrostGeologyPhysical geographyArchaeologyGeographyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Geological Survey of Canada, of Natural Resources Canada, and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada conducted a field program between 2006 and 2010 to address gaps in baseline environmental information in the northern Mackenzie Corridor. Ground thermal data were collected from seven sites along the proposed hydrocarbon development corridor between Inuvik and the Niglingtak anchor field. In addition, soil samples were collected at six new field sites for laboratory testing. Geotechnical and geochemical information, together with near-surface and ground temperature data from these sites has been compiled in a relational database presented. Graphic presentations of the data are provided along with information on site characteristics and photographs. Also provided are ground penetrating radar profiles acquired from some of these sites, and from related terrain. The data provide useful baseline information to users including those involved in planning northern development, infrastructure design and the regulatory process.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.618
Threshold uncertainty score0.760

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.004

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.210 · 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
GenreDataset

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

Citations14
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicClimate change and permafrost→French-language works237,207→