Revisiting Geomorphological Hotspots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1996, just a quarter of a century ago, I wrote a paper called “Geomorphological ‘hotspots’ and global warming” (Goudie 1996). My motivation to choose this theme, was that various biogeographers and ecologists, fearing loss of biodiversity due to human activities, had used the phrase “biodiversity hotspots” for those areas that may be of greatest significance because of their sensitivity and the richness (and endemicity) of their fauna and flora. A leader in this was a forester, Norman Myers, who had published an influential paper in 1992. T his made me wonder whether there were “geomorphological hotspots” where the environment was particularly sensitive to future global warming. These included areas that were close to some climatic threshold for their existence or stability, where the expected amount of climatic change was especially high (as in high latitudes), or where other human activities were working in concert with global warming to have dire cumulative effects.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".