MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7163577777 · doi:10.26071/86674fef-b00d-4c52

R/V Coriolis II expedition TCA-MEOPAR – COR2025 HOLOCENE SAGUENAY

2025· dataset· en· W7163577777 on OpenAlexaffabout
Stephanie Kusch, Hilary Corlett, Émilie Saulnier-Talbot, Alexandre Lair

Bibliographic record

VenueOGSL repository · 2025
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalMemorial University of NewfoundlandCégep de Rimouski
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFjordHoloceneCoringTransectSedimentary depositional environmentSedimentary rockSedimentSill

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This cruise report describes the R/V Coriolis II expedition TCA-MEOPAR – COR2025 HOLOCENE SAGUENAY. The mission is part of the TCA cluster 1.1. UncertainSea, workpackage Land-to-Sea, which aims to investigate land-to-ocean matter fluxes in various fjords along a latitudinal transect from the Saguenay Fjord, Québec, to Croker Bay, Devon Island, Canada throughout the Holocene. This cruise was dedicated to sample sediment cores from the head of the Saguenay, at the mouth of Baie Des Ha! Ha!, and in the central upper fjord near Grosse-Ile. Gravity coring was performed to retrieve long sedimentary sequences with sufficient resolution to capture natural climatic, sedimentological, and depositional changes. Parallel cores from each sampling site were obtained to allow analysis of a multitude of non-destructive and destructive proxies. In addition to gravity coring, surface samples from within and outside the fjord were obtained by multicorer (to sample the water-sediment interface, including the fluffy layer, and uppermost sediment samples) and boxcorer (for 3D imaging of the uppermost sediment).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.519
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.014

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOGSL repositoryFrench-language works237,207