MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W127150161

Mapping and Classification of Potential Avalanche Sites in the Chic-Chocs Mountains, Quebec, Canada, Using Geographic Information Systems

2006· article· en· W127150161 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alain Royer, Stephanie Lemieux

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the 2006 International Snow Science Workshop, Telluride, Colorado · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerrainGeographic information systemGeographyTopographic map (neuroanatomy)Satellite imageryCartographyNational parkRemote sensingArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Avalanche sites mapping and classification are tools that have been frequently used for managing avalanche risks. The use of geographic information systems (GIS) for such applications has great potential although it is still in development. The potential avalanche sites of the Chic-Chocs Mountains, Quebec, Canada, was mapped with GIS technology, satellite images, aerial photos and 1:20 000 topographic maps. A forest map, including three different levels of forest density, was generated from the satellite image. A total of 59 potential avalanche zones were characterized in this area, including 249 avalanches paths, Moreover, in order to build an institutional memory bank of one of the most frequented area by winter sports adepts in Quebec, a system was created to allow future cataloguing of avalanche occurrences inside the potential avalanche location map. Another terrain analysis was also performed to address the challenge of the access restrictions of Mount-Albert in Gaspesie National Park. A terrain classification by exposure to avalanches based on Parks Canada’s technical model was performed in order to help safer management of the park’s winter activities. The database linked to a GIS is the basis for the study of potential correlation between topographic parameters and weather patterns.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.682

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the 2006 International Snow Science Workshop, Telluride, ColoradoSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207