Abstracts – Geological Association of Canada, Newfoundland Section – 2010 Spring Technical Meeting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following our long-standing tradition, and in keeping with our sense of the absurd, the 2010 Spring Technical Meeting was once again held in the depths of the Newfoundland winter in the Johnson GEO CENTRE on scenic Signal Hill in St. John's.The meeting featured a special session intended to highlight recent resource developments and the renewed interest in the energy potential of the province, especially as it relates to onshore and offshore petroleum, but also included energy minerals and other resources.A special session featured a series of talks related to the Geological Survey of Canada's Targeted Geoscience Initiative (TGI) program in Newfoundland.For those specifically interested in the TGI Program and the geology of central Newfoundland, a post-conference workshop (organized by Geological Survey of Canada and Geological Survey of Newfoundland and Labrador) was held to discuss outcomes and future plans.In addition, a general session included papers on an eclectic range of topics, as is normally the case at these meetings.The 2010 meeting featured the third of the "Topical Geoscience Lecture" series, co-sponsored by the Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Newfoundland and Labrador (PEG-NL).The speaker was Dr. Maurice Tivey of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, who spoke on the scientific, technical, and jurisdictional challenges in the development of seafloor mineral resources.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.191 | 0.099 |
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".