MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910767490 · doi:10.4095/212090

Bedrock mapping in the Committee Bay Belt, Laughland Lake area, central mainland, Nunavut

2001· report· en· W2910767490 on OpenAlexaffabout
H A Sandeman, Jenna Brown, C. Studnicki-Gizbert, T MacHattie, Darrell Hyde, Steve Johnstone, E Greiner, Dionisio Giménez Plaza

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Studies and Exploration
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayBedrockMainlandGeologyOceanographyGeographyPhysical geographyArchaeologyGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Committee Bay Belt is underlain by northeast-trending rocks of the Archean Prince Albert Group, flanked to the north and west by paragneiss and associated peraluminous and metaluminous granitoid bodies, and to the south and east by metaluminous granitoid bodies. The Prince Albert Group comprises dominant semipelite and psammite, iron-formation and quartzite, with less abundant, spinifex-textured komatiite, and rare basaltic and intermediate to felsic volcanic rocks. Synvolcanic intrusions ranging from rare gabbro, quartz diorite and diorite, to abundant tonalite, granodiorite and granite, outcrop south, east, and northwest of a plutonic body of tonalite to granodiorite interpreted to be younger than the supracrustal belts. To the west and north, metamorphic grade increases to amphibolite facies with consequent development of paragneiss and accompanying peraluminous melts. To the southeast, a granitic intrusive suite is cut by an anorthosite complex, both of which are intruded by Paleoproterozoic monzogranite.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.145
Threshold uncertainty score0.292

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Citations13
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological Studies and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207