A semiquantitative representation of uncertainty for the 3D Paleozoic bedrock model of Southern Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The southern Ontario bedrock model is a valuable resource for researchers and practitioners, but its application is subject to uncertainty. To address this issue a semi-quantitative approach to visualize the relative effects of data sparsity for each layer, identify regions where a lack of data support reduces model confidence, and quantify potential errors in data collection and model construction is presented. This analysis summarizes several sources of error, including cartesian position error, error in the vertical position of the formation contact, error between the modelled topographic surface and recorded collar elevations, and error between the modelled formation top surface and formation top picks. Where data is present, these errors are added to provide an approximation of total uncertainty. Where data are not present, uncertainty is approximated as 50% of the range in formation top variation, with an average value of 27.5 m across all layers. The results show that data availability strongly influences the average total error for each layer, with deeper layers exhibiting higher total error due to lower data density. However, this analysis also suggests that the modelled surfaces likely carry errors of less than 5 to 10 m in most regions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".