MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981610974 · doi:10.4095/288088

An updated seismic shothole drillers' log-based assessment of potential granular aggregate resources and bedrock outcrop and subcrop occurrences, Ka'a'gee Tu Candidate Protected area, southern Northwest Territories

2011· report· en· W2981610974 on OpenAlexaffabout
I R Smith, K Lesk-Winfield

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutcropBedrockGeologyGeeGeomorphologyGeneralized estimating equationStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This publication's purpose is to provide information on the location and thickness of potential granular aggregate resources (gravel and sand) and bedrock outcrop/subcrop localities which may host suitable quarry material in the vicinity of the Ka'a'gee Tu Candidate Protected Area, southern Northwest Territories. Newly acquired archival seismic shothole drillers-log data from Shell Canada, ConocoPhillips Canada, and Paramount Resources, are used to update previous reconstructions of potential granular aggregate deposits (Open File 6058) and bedrock outcrop/subcrop occurrences (Open File 6410). A total of 713 potential granular aggregate deposits and 4264 bedrock outcrop/subcrop occurrences have been added to the thematic GIS which is presented here. Application of this information is considered beneficial to all manner of regional, community, and resource infrastructure development, and may be incorporated into decision making by those planning the geographical extents and limitations to development in the proposed Ka'a'gee Tu Candidate Protected Area.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.395
Threshold uncertainty score0.795

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRangeland and Wildlife ManagementFrench-language works237,207