MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963512686 · doi:10.3138/carto.46.3.200

Damage Assessment of the 2011 Japanese Tsunami Using High-Resolution Satellite Data

2011· article· en· W1963512686 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCartographica The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRemote-Sensing Image Classification
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Geological SurveyNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
KeywordsGeological surveyGeologySeismologySatelliteIndian oceanGeographyOceanographyGeophysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Department of Geography and Geoinformation Science / George Mason University / Fairfax / VA / USAIntroductionOn 11 March 2011 at 05:46 UTC, a massive Mw 9.0underwater earthquake occurred 70 km off the easterncoast of Japan. The location of the earthquake was trian-gulated by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) to38.322 N 142.369 E, and the hypocentre was computedto 32 km beneath the surface. Figure 1 shows a map ofthe earthquakes that occurred between 1 and 10 March2011 (a) and between 11 and 31 March 2011 (b). Theearthquake of 11 March generated a tsunami that rapidlyhit the eastern coast of Japan and propagated across thePacific Ocean to the western coast of the Americas. Atsunami warning was issued by the National Oceanic andAtmospheric Agency (NOAA) affecting all countries withcoastline along the Pacific.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.658
Threshold uncertainty score0.475

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.251 · 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