Glacial Ice Hazards Working Group (GIHWG) Report of the Inaugural Meeting 25 & 26 June 2015, at Carleton University
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This report documents the first meeting of the Glacial Ice Hazards Working Group (GIHWG) on the 25 th and 26 th of June, 2015 at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada.The vision of the group is to bring together the many diverse and widely distributed people concerned with floating hazards composed of freshwater ice (or substantially freshwater ice) every two years.Our purpose is to foster collaboration, data sharing and interdisciplinary work on icebergs and ice islands, and to begin framing and prioritizing research and development objectives where needs are greatest.The origin of the group is based on one of the recommendations from a report entitled Preliminary Research Plan for Glacial Ice Hazards (Saper, 2011), which called for a biannual meeting convened by the Applied Science Group of the Canadian Ice Service (CIS).This report was a deliverable to the CIS under a contract managed by Tom Carrieres.Later, in 2014, Adrienne Tivy (CIS) and Ron Saper (Carleton University) decided to organize such a meeting, but rather than being sponsored by CIS, the meeting would be organized by a committee of individuals from various organizations.Derek Mueller of Carleton University agreed to host the initial meeting, and he joined the organizing committee along with Greg Crocker (Ballicater), Angela Cheng (CIS) and Hai Tran (CIS).Forty-six people participated by attending at least part of the meeting in person, by telephone, by videoconference, or by providing slides in advance of the meeting.The participants included invited academics, government employees, and private sector people that were known to the organizing committee, or who were identified by other invitees.There was no publicity for this initial meeting, no fee for attendance, and no formal papers presented.This report outlines the meeting format, and provides brief summaries of the discussions in a more or less uniform format for readability.For completeness, the detailed breakout summaries prepared by breakout session chairs are included (with some editing) as an Annex to this report.Although there was no fee for participation, all participants were required to contribute, in advance, a seven slide presentation deck adhering to a common template with no distribution restrictions.Virtually all participants complied, and these presentations are a substantial output of the meeting in their own right because they reflect first-hand initial assessments of research priorities, report on many activities, and identify key resources.These presentations are available for download at the working group web page (http://wirl.carleton.ca/gihwg).The meeting identified four broad needs: 1) the need for sharing and archiving of comprehensive data sets/observations; 2) the need for better schemes for model inter-comparison and evaluation; 3) the need to incorporate understanding of climate change and glaciology into activities; and 4) the need to prepare protocols for large scale field operations (response to calving of ice islands).People interested in participating in or keeping current with the activities of the GIHWG should visit the website and follow instructions to subscribe to the email listserv, which is hosted free of charge by Carleton University.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,057 | 0,027 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».