Recent revisions to the North American Stratigraphic Code and suggestions for implementation by Canadian geoscientists: replacing culturally offensive unit names and utilizing Indigenous place names
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is increasing recognition and discussion in international science enquiry of the embedment of culturally offensive terminology within various classification systems. The geosciences are in the early stages of such discussions, but there is increasing awareness that some geological unit names may be offensive to Indigenous Peoples or other social groups. Recent revisions to the North American Stratigraphic Code now permit replacement of culturally offensive or otherwise inappropriate unit names, and also allow for the use of maps produced by Indigenous governments or organizations as a valid source of toponyms for new unit names. We urge all Canadian geoscientists to raise awareness of these changes to the Code and implement them in their research and project development, taking into consideration the role of community consultation and engagement. Canada’s geological surveys can provide leadership in these efforts, and organizations should review their data systems as a means of identifying offensive unit names. Replacing offensive unit names is now a codified process and we encourage Canadian geoscientists to take action.
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 | 0.073 | 0.229 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".