MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6931724461 · doi:10.5282/rcc/9272

“The battle of geological experts”: Water Flow and Tunneling within a Welsh Mountain

2021· article· en· W6931724461 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversitätsbibliothek der LMU · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDrainageWelshBattleCarboniferousDitchFlood mythWater flowLead (geology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Halkyn Mountain in north-east Wales was one of the most important lead mining areas in Britain. Mining had a dramatic effect on the landscape and created distinct communities. As lead miners probed deeper to reach new veins, water levels rose in shafts and passages. Empowered by Acts of Parliament, mine owners and syndicates embarked on drainage schemes and extensive tunneling, which enabled the flow of water away from the mines and access to the ore. Above ground, there were local anxieties over the spread of mine shafts and the impact of drainage tunnels on local water supplies. Tunnel expansion was subject to Parliamentary hearings and geologists appeared as expert witnesses to discuss the nature of carboniferous limestone and underground water flow.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.394
Threshold uncertainty score0.290

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversitätsbibliothek der LMUSame topicPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207