CHRONOSTRATIGRAPHIC UNITS NAMED FROM BELGIUM AND ADJACENT AREAS - Preface
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preliminary reports on the concepts and uses of lithostratigraphic, biostratigraphic and chronostratigraphic units were delivered at the International Geological Congress of Montreal, Canada, 1970. They were subsequently formalised as International Stratigraphic Guides (Hedberg, 1976; Salvador, 1994). The recommendations of the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS, see: http://www.stratigraphy.org/) of the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS, see: http://www.iugs.org/) have generally been well accepted by the Belgian community of geologists as represented by national stratigraphic subcommissions set up under the Belgian National Committee of Geological Sciences. However, the application of these recommendations has taken some time and the need has been felt for documents to synthesise the current situation regarding stratigraphic units named from Belgium and adjacent areas. In 2001, thanks to the collaboration of 44 geologists, a guide to a revised lithostratigraphic scale of Belgium was published in Geologica Belgica (Bultynck & Dejonghe, 2001). A similar volume dealing with the chronostratigraphic units was thought to be necessary to summarise the current scientific knowledge regarding series, stages and substages named from Belgium and adjacent areas. This is particularly relevant at the present time because the status of a number of stages and other units, some of worldwide application, has been changed as a result of recent decisions of the Internat
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".