Comment on egusphere-2024-2502
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. This work describes early engagement with 21 First Nations or alliances, that represent 41 Nations, in British Columbia, Canada. Geological researchers conducted this work as a case study to assess the feasibility of carbon storage in serpentinite rocks. The priorities for engagement were to inform people about the project and its implications, get consent for fieldwork, have a discussion, and start building relationships. Aside from the geology and logistics of a site for a carbon storage project, the permitting and acceptance by the local community and the traditional lands‘ rightsholders are needed for a successful project. The engagement levels and timelines varied from short phone calls to emails and video meetings. The general reception was positive, and people showed an interest and appreciated being contacted early. Common areas of discussion were water quality, salmon habitat, and involving the youth. This work outlines the first step for engagement, and further work will be done if a proposed CO2 storage project is to proceed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.510 | 0.277 |
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".