MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1420573341 · doi:10.1089/ast.2014.1172

Field Demonstration of an Instrument Performing Automatic Classification of Geologic Surfaces

2014· article· en· W1420573341 on OpenAlexaff
Dmitriy Bekker, David R. Thompson, William Abbey, Nathalie A. Cabrol, Raymond Francis, K. Manatt, Kevin Ortega, Kiri L. Wagstaff

Bibliographic record

VenueAstrobiology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Object Detection Techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsField (mathematics)Remote sensingComputer scienceGeologyAstrobiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work presents a method with which to automate simple aspects of geologic image analysis during space exploration. Automated image analysis on board the spacecraft can make operations more efficient by generating compressed maps of long traverses for summary downlink. It can also enable immediate automatic responses to science targets of opportunity, improving the quality of targeted measurements collected with each command cycle. In addition, automated analyses on Earth can process large image catalogs, such as the growing database of Mars surface images, permitting more timely and quantitative summaries that inform tactical mission operations. We present TextureCam, a new instrument that incorporates real-time image analysis to produce texture-sensitive classifications of geologic surfaces in mesoscale scenes. A series of tests at the Cima Volcanic Field in the Mojave Desert, California, demonstrated mesoscale surficial mapping at two distinct sites of geologic interest.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.241
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstrobiologySame topicImage and Object Detection TechniquesFrench-language works237,207