Mineralogical Association of Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Tribute to Frank Christopher Hawthorne" issue and the no-less-impressive March 2016 "PGE Mineralogy from Magmatic to Supergene Environments" edition.The May 2016 issue should be on its way to you, and the remaining issues from 2016 should appear at a rate of one per month through mid-2017 until we are up.Now that things are moving more smoothly, I plan to communicate regularly with our authors and readers.Over the last few years, I've received many questions about what happens to a manuscript after a revised version is accepted.The answer to that question is much more complicated today than it was in 1985, or even 2005.The first thing that happens is that Jordan Roberts (Editorial Assistant) prepares the document for editing, which involves checking that the figures and tables appear in numerical order and are formatted correctly, that all citations appear as references, and vice versa, and that the references are in The Canadian Mineralogist format.Simultaneously, Donald ("DJ") Lake (Editorial Assistant for Compliance) checks that the mineral names are in compliance with the list maintained by the Commission on New Minerals, Nomenclature and Classification of the International Mineralogical Association.The document is then sent by DJ to Mackenzie Parker (Managing Editor), who edits for physical style: heading formats, italics, grammar, etc. Mackenzie then sends the manuscript to me (Editor) to review for science and sense.If there is anything that is unclear, I flag it for an Author Query.When I am done, I return the document to Mackenzie to prepare for typesetting, which she does by checking my changes, sending my queries to the authors, spell checking, en-dash checks, and marking figure sizes.She then sends the file to the typesetter to prepare the first proof
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.202 | 0.059 |
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".