Great Plains Geology: A Personal Journey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From graduate school in 1962 to now, I achieved my goals and became a geologist and professor, travelling and doing research in the Great Plains and western Central Lowland physiographic provinces, and looking at geology in exotic places like the UK, China, Australia and New Zealand. Fast forward to 2013. I had enough experience and expertise on Great Plains geology by then that I was asked to write a short book of about 35,000 words on the geology of the Great Plains by the director of the Center for Great Plains Studies at the University of Nebraska, Dr. Richard Edwards. After visiting and studying sites in Alberta and Saskatchewan in Canada, and in south-western Texas that I had not previously studied, I started working on the book now titled Great Plains Geology that is reviewed in this issue of Deposits on the page opposite. I may be wrong, but I think that few people from the UK have much of a mental image of the Great Plains or know its boundaries. Certainly, that is true of most of our citizens in the USA. The area of land included in the Great Plains has been much debated since the late 1800s, when the physiographic region was defined and its area probably drawn for the first time on a map by the second director of the United States Geological Survey, John Wesley Powell (1895). Powell only included the part of the Great Plains in the United States on his map, but wrote that the place extended north into the Canadian prairie provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, and south into a small part of northern Mexico. I have included descriptions of some sites in those areas of the Great Plains in my book.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.005 |
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.
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".