MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2895552956 · doi:10.1139/geomat-2018-0003

Survey-as-process: meanders or oxbows?

2018· article· en· W2895552956 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Steven Rogers, Brian Ballantyne, Erin L. Tompkins

Bibliographic record

VenueGEOMATICA · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLand Rights and Reforms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess (computing)Boundary (topology)TribunalSurvey data collectionSurveyorSurvey researchGeographyLand registrationBusinessEnvironmental planningPolitical scienceEnvironmental resource managementComputer sciencePublic relationsLand tenureLawEconomicsCartographyArchaeologyMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Land surveying is a process that is more than fieldwork. Survey-as-process includes interplay with existing surveys, with landowners (and others with rights in the land) and with regulators. Proof of concept evidence, theoretical constructs, a Specific Claims Tribunal decision and a First Nations Land Management Act boundary opinion illustrate how survey-as process fits within the larger exercise of re-establishing boundaries.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.167

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0070.019
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0500.005

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueGEOMATICASame topicLand Rights and ReformsFrench-language works237,207