MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W34584202 · doi:10.4401/ag-4625

Inge Lehmann’s work materials and seismological epistolary archive

2009· article· en· W34584202 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Erik Hjortenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Geophysics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommissionHistoryArt historyWork (physics)BiographyLibrary sciencePolitical sciencePhysicsComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Inge Lehmann archive contains thousands of seismological work documents from Inge Lehmann’s private home. For a long time the author thought that the main concern was to keep the documents for posterity. There is now a renewed interest in Inge Lehmann, and some documents were presented in a poster at ESC Potsdam 2004, and the collection of documents were scanned and catalogued 2005-2006 at Storia Geofisica Ambiente in Bologna. Inge Lehmann (1888-1993) is famous for her discovery in 1936 of the earth’s inner core and for work on the upper mantle. A short biography is given. After her retirement in 1953 she worked at home in Denmark, and abroad in USA and in Canada. She took part in the creation of the European Seismological Commission in 1951, and in the creation of the International Seismological Centre in 1964. Inge Lehmann received many awards. Some letters from her early correspondence with Harold Jeffreys are discussed, they show how the inner core was discussed already in 1932. A few of the author’s reminiscences of Inge Lehmann are given.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.243
Threshold uncertainty score0.813

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2430.139

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.210 · 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
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

Citations12
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of GeophysicsSame topicearthquake and tectonic studiesFrench-language works237,207