The Geological Survey of Canada's Mountain Pine Beetle Project - ground surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Geological Survey of Canada hosted Geoscience Workshops in both Quesnel and Williams Lake, British Columbia, in mid-February 2009. These workshops were organized under the Mountain Pine Beetle program of Natural Resources Canada. Under this program, the Geological Survey of Canada coordinated a geoscience project to assist with diversifying the forest-dependent economies of central British Columbia that have been most significantly impacted by the Mountain Pine Beetle infestation. During the course of the project, a significant amount of new geoscience data and information was collected and distributed by the GSC and its partners in the British Columbia Provincial Government and Geoscience BC. This geoscience information is intended for use by the mineral and oil and gas exploration industries to help reduce their risk to explore for resources in the region. Approximately 20 of the local First Nations were invited to participate in a two-way educational dialogue aimed at better understanding the potential resources of the region. As the First Nations are primary partners with these industries, and responsible for much of the local land use and planning, the workshops outlined the value, purpose, and uses of these publicly-available data sets.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".