MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321125771 · doi:10.4095/331420

Status of surficial geology mapping in northern Canada

2023· report· en· W4321125771 on OpenAlexaffabout
D E Kerr, A Plouffe, J E Campbell, I McMartin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologic mapGeologyStructural geologyRegional geologyGeological surveyRegional studiesDigital mappingGeomorphologyCartographyArchaeologyPhysical geographyGeochemistryRemote sensingPaleontologyGeographyTectonicsTelmatologyRegional developmentRegional science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Geo-mapping for Energy and Minerals (GEM) program has facilitated the availability of new and converted surficial geology maps and associated digital data sets for large sectors of northern Canada, leading to about 70% of the North being mapped and digitally available. Development of the Surficial Data Model and Canadian Geoscience Map (CGM) series has streamlined the publication process and created a common standard digital-map format and geodatabase. Based on traditional and more recent remote predictive mapping methodologies, there are now three types of surficial geology CGM maps produced: surficial geology, reconnaissance surficial geology, and predictive surficial geology. The considerable number of new surficial geology maps published during the two phases of the GEM program, as well as upcoming map publications, has resulted in an increase of 12% in map coverage north of 60°, constituting a significant legacy of the GEM program.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0070.019
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.178 · 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
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 topicGeological Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207