THE AGE OF THE ORDOVICIAN KIRKFIELD FORMATION IN ONTARIO
Bibliographic record
Abstract
areas of outcrop, one a band running roughly southeast from Georgian Bay to Lake Ontario, the other a series of more or less disconnected exposures in faulted blocks in the Ottawa Valley and St. Lawrence lowland. Between these two areas lies the pre-Cambrian Frontenac axis. Although considerable distances are involved (Hull is 170 miles from Kirkfield), correlation of beds across the axis have been made with assurance, and formational names defined in one area have been applied to beds in the other. Thus the name Hull has been used for beds in each area. Study of the faunas involved made me suspect that this correlation was incorrect and in 1942 I prepared a paper for the Ottawa meeting of the Geological Society of America, setting forth my views, and suggesting that the local name Kirkfield be revived for the Central Ontario beds, since it implied no correlation. The Ottawa meeting was cancelled, but the abstract of my paper was published. At that time I was dissuaded from publication of my notes by the argument that further detailed field-work was needed for final solution of the problem, and that controversy should be avoided until this could be done. This, I think, was sound
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".