MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6891620057 · doi:10.4224/40000427

Fondement scientifique du Système des régimes de glace : document de travail

2002· report· fr· W6891620057 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueNational Research Council Canada (Government of Canada) · 2002
Typereport
Languagefr
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaCanadian Wood Council
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)PopulationPublic policySocial justice

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le présent rapport a pour objet de fournir un cadre de discussion sur les moyens que Transports Canada devrait prendre pour adopter une approche plus scientifique au Système des régimes de glace du Canada. Le rapport commence par un bref aperçu des travaux qui ont été faits pour donner au Système des régimes de glace un fondement scientifique. Les résultats des discussions entre les parties intéressées au Système des régimes de glace sont aussi présentés. Quatre approches possibles sont proposées pour la mise en application du système, et les avantages et les désavantages de chaque approche sont examinés.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.766
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0140.006
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.003

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.171 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNational Research Council Canada (Government of Canada)French-language works237,207