MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409888918 · doi:10.1139/cjes-2025-0007

Geophysical studies of the lithosphere and plate boundaries: special issue in honour of Roy D. Hyndman

2025· article· en· W4409888918 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Kelin Wang, Claire A. Currie, J. F. Cassidy

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicHigh-pressure geophysics and materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of VictoriaGeological Survey of CanadaNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyLithosphereHonourGeophysicsPlate tectonicsSeismologyTectonicsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dr. Roy D. Hyndman (1940Hyndman ( -2023) ) (Fig. 1) was one of the world's most respected geophysicists, a visionary scientific leader, and an inspring teacher.His more than 260 scientific publications span six decades, from a paper published as a Ph.D. student (Hyndman 1965) to two papers posthumously published in this special issue (Hyndman and Wang 2025;Yelisetti et al. 2025).From both scientific and technical perspectives, the breadth and diversity of the subjects covered by his publications are difficult to fathom.The following quote from the citation for his 2017 Geological Association of Canada Logan medal best characterizes his legacy: "His contributions to the science of tectonics and geodynamics cross the boundaries of land and ocean, geology and geophysics, and fundamental research and societal needs.He is well known for his ability to establish new conceptual frameworks from multidisciplinary observations."Roy was born in Vancouver, Canada.He obtained the degrees of B.Sc. and M.Sc. at the

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.005

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.218 · 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
GenreEditorial

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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Earth SciencesSame topicHigh-pressure geophysics and materialsFrench-language works237,207