Bibliographic record
Abstract
After the shovel, hand auger probably represents the simplest of light-weight shallow coring methods available. GCS Northern has a T-handle soil auger, with 4-inch diameter auger heads applicable for loam soils, sand and clay, and extension rods for coring in excess of 5 metres. Experience in a range of soils has shown that the open-faced clay auger head is the ideal all-purpose auger, which permits easy sampling and removal of soil from the auger. A soil auger is ideal in most moist soils (particularly sandy soils), where exposures are absent. The auger can penetrate wet and even saturated silts and clays, permitting sampling several metres below the watertable in some circumstances. It is a good alternative where vibra-coring is not possible. The auger can be operated by one person, with quick-connect (used by GSC) or threaded options. It is very portable, and typical coring depths reach 3 to 5 metres with excellent core recovery. Disadvantages include recovery of only disturbed samples, and difficulty in recovering very dry or very wet, non-cohesive samples. Most of these disadvantages may be overcome by utilizing a slide-hammer soil core sampler. GSC Northern has experience with a 2-inch diameter, 12-inch long sampler. The short undisturbed samples are ideal for optical dating. The sampler can use an existing auger-hole to obtain a core sample, and uses a slide-hammer for coring, and T-handle for extraction. The ideal method is to combine auger sampling and slide-hammer coring. A disadvantage is that it can be difficult to extract the sample from the corer. For this reason a split-tube sampler is available, but has not been tried by GSC personnel.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.009 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".