MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4319078535 · doi:10.4095/331384

Investigation into the feasibility of increasing geoscience accessibility through existing web platforms and mobile applications, Nunavut

2023· report· en· W4319078535 on OpenAlexaffabout
M Sanborn-Barrie, N M Rayner, A Ford

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographic Information Systems Studies
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEarth scienceGeoreferenceWeb applicationData scienceWorld Wide WebGeographyComputer scienceGeologyPhysical geography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accessibility and uptake of geoscience knowledge by First Nations and Inuit community members has traditionally been limited. This is, at least in part, due to the technical nature of geological maps and the expensive licensing requirements of the geographic information system software that is used to view and analyse geoscience data. During the Foundational Year of GEM GeoNorth, we investigated the potential of available apps and platforms, including NRCan Observer, Rockd and SIKU to broaden access and knowledge sharing of geoscience with non-specialists. Most prospective was SIKU - a mobile app developed by northerners for northerners that currently supports knowledge-gathering related to the natural world (currently mammals, birds, fish and sea-ice conditions). This report provides an overview of our investigation and presents detailed aspects of the feasibility and related costs of incorporating a geoscience component(s) into SIKU that could allow northerners the opportunity to calibrate geoscience through georeferenced photographs and structural trends for consideration and use on their terms.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.292
Threshold uncertainty score0.588

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.233
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeographic Information Systems Studies→French-language works237,207→