MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312263813 · doi:10.4095/331097

Initiating transformative geoscience practice at the Geological Survey of Canada: Canada in 3D

2022· report· en· W4312263813 on OpenAlexaffabout
E A de Kemp, H A J Russell, Boyan Brodaric, D. B. Snyder, M. J. Hillier, M R St-Onge, C. G. A. Harrison, D Paul, A Vaillancourt, Karine Bédard, Andy Mort, E M Schetselaar, Don White, C Logan, A Ashoori Pareshkoohi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkflowData scienceComputer scienceOperationalizationEarth scienceProcess (computing)CyberinfrastructureGeological surveyGeologyGeophysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Application of 3D technologies to the wide range of Geosciences knowledge domains is well underway. These have been operationalized in workflows of the hydrocarbon sector for a half-century, and now in mining for over two decades. In Geosciences, algorithms, structured workflows and data integration strategies can support compelling Earth models, however challenges remain to meet the standards of geological plausibility required for most geoscientific studies. There is also missing links in the institutional information infrastructure supporting operational multi-scale 3D data and model development. Canada in 3D (C3D) is a vision and road map for transforming the Geological Survey of Canada's (GSC) work practice by leveraging emerging 3D technologies. Primarily the transformation from 2D geological mapping, to a well-structured 3D modelling practice that is both data-driven and knowledge-driven. It is tempting to imagine that advanced 3D computational methods, coupled with Artificial Intelligence and Big Data tools will automate the bulk of this process. To effectively apply these methods there is a need, however, for data to be in a well-organized, classified, georeferenced (3D) format embedded with key information, such as spatial-temporal relations, and earth process knowledge. Another key challenge for C3D is the relative infancy of 3D geoscience technologies for geological inference and 3D modelling using sparse and heterogeneous regional geoscience information, while preserving the insights and expertise of geoscientists maintaining scientific integrity of digital products. In most geological surveys, there remains considerable educational and operational challenges to achieve this balance of digital automation and expert knowledge. Emerging from the last two decades of research are more efficient workflows, transitioning from cumbersome, explicit (manual) to reproducible implicit semi-automated methods. They are characterized by integrated and iterative, forward and reverse geophysical modelling, coupled with stratigraphic and structural approaches. The full impact of research and development with these 3D tools, geophysical-geological integration and simulation approaches is perhaps unpredictable, but the expectation is that they will produce predictive, instructive models of Canada's geology that will be used to educate, prioritize and influence sustainable policy for stewarding our natural resources. On the horizon are 3D geological modelling methods spanning the gulf between local and frontier or green-fields, as well as deep crustal characterization. These are key components of mineral systems understanding, integrated and coupled hydrological modelling and energy transition applications, e.g. carbon sequestration, in-situ hydrogen mining, and geothermal exploration. Presented are some case study examples at a range of scales from our efforts in C3D.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score0.946

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0200.018
Scholarly communication0.0160.005
Open science0.0040.011
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.192 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207