Bibliographic record
Abstract
The origin of Geomorphology can be referred to 2500 years ago when the ancient Greek, Roman, Arab and Chinese philosophers tried to comprehend the occurrence of earthquakes, volcanoes and the presence of seashells at high mountains elevations. Leonardo da Vinci, during the Renaissance, discussed the formation of valleys based on observation of natural processes. After catastrophism and uniformitarianism theories as explanations of the origin of Earth's relief, in the later part of the nineteenth century, geographical and geological surveys were carried out on the western United States giving important contributions to the development of geomorphological theory. Then, Davis, Penck, King had stated different models of landscape evolution. In the last few decades the Geomorphology has been dominated by the study of modern processes, their mechanics and rates of operations and on the behaviour of earth materials. In that sense, Alan Trenhaile has written Geomorphology: A Canadian Perspective, a comprehensive introduction to geomorphology, the study of physical features of the surface of the Earth and how they evolve. It is a text focused for undergraduate Geography and Earth Sciences Canadian students in its third edition
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.303 | 0.234 |
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".