MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4402584684 · doi:10.4095/pmnwznphzq

Regional lake-sediment geochemical data from northern Manitoba (NTS 064-G): reanalysis data and QA/QC evaluation

2024· report· fr· W4402584684 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
S D Amor, Chris G. Couëslan, Michelle S. Gauthier, Tiago Damas Martins, M W McCurdy, S J A Day, Stephen W. Adcock

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSedimentHydrology (agriculture)GeologyEnvironmental sciencePhysical geographyGeographyGeomorphologyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le présent rapport présente de nouvelles données géochimiques et les résultats de l’assurance de la qualité et du contrôle de la qualité (AQ/CQ) de la réanalyse d’échantillons de sédiments lacustres prélevés dans le nord du Manitoba (SNRC 64-G), prélevés sur une superficie approximative de 13 300 km2 avec une densité moyenne d’un échantillon par 15 km2. Les premiers programmes d’échantillonnage ont été réalisés en 1984 et les résultats sont présentés dans le dossier public 1105 de la Commission géologique du Canada. Des échantillons de sédiments lacustres provenant de 881 sites ont été réanalysés entre 2020 et 2022. Les échantillons ont été mesurés pour 65 éléments par aquarège modifiée – spectrométrie de masse à plasma à couplage inductif, et pour 35 éléments par analyse d’activation neutronique instrumentale. Pour garantir des données géochimiques de haute qualité, les données ont été évaluées pour en vérifier l’exactitude, la précision et l’adéquation à l’usage. Les résultats de l’AQ/CQ ont permis d’identifier plusieurs éléments à surveiller attentivement en vue d’analyses futures.

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)0.002
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: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.238
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.100 · 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
GenreDataset

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping→French-language works237,207→