MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2954796749 · doi:10.4095/314705

Reconnaissance surficial geology, Leith Peninsula, Northwest Territories, NTS 86-E

2019· report· en· W2954796749 on OpenAlexaffabout
D E Kerr, H B O'Neill

Bibliographic record

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

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Leith Peninsula map area is characterized by three distinct terrain types differentiated by surficial sediment cover and associated landforms. An extensive zone of generally low-lying bedrock-dominated terrain with little sediment cover dominates the eastern regions from Hottah Lake to McTavish Arm. The central and western regions below 280-290 m a.s.l. are covered by various glaciolacustrine sediments, including well developed raised beaches. The southwestern and central highlands rise from 300 m a.s.l. to 500 m a.s.l. and consist of different till units with glacial flutings, moraine ridges, and meltwater channels. In all terrain types, glaciofluvial eskers generally trend westward to northwestward. During the last glaciation, ice advanced westward, deviating slightly to west-northwestward toward McVicar Arm and McTavish Arm. Minor local variations in ice-flow direction are recorded by striations, crag-and-tail features, and fluted bedrock. Glacial Lake McConnell generally inundated the land in the region up to 290 m a.s.l., and up to 300 m a.s.l. to 305 m a.s.l. in some locations due to local ice configuration.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.642
Threshold uncertainty score0.713

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0580.014

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological Studies and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207