MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comaparison Of Survey Results From Em-61 And Beep Mat For Uxo In Basaltic Terrain

2007· article· en· W1989166552 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Les P. Beard, Jacob R. Sheehan, William E. Doll, P Gaucher, Regis Desbiens, Wayne Mandell

Bibliographic record

Venue20th EEGS Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnexploded ordnanceMagnetometerGeologyTerrainMagnetic anomalyRemote sensingMagnetic surveyGeophysicsSeismologyMagnetic fieldPhysicsGeographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Site S-12 is one of several World War II era bombing targets found on the Pueblos of Laguna and Isleta in New Mexico. Magnetometry results from a low-altitude helicopter magnetometry survey at S-12 were inconclusive as to the extent and density of the ordnance debris field because underlying basalt flows created such a strong background signal. Subsequently, a team from Battelle and GDD Inc. carried out ground geophysical surveys to test the effectiveness of a geophysical instrument called Beep Mat. Beep Mat is mounted in a rugged sled and is designed to be towed over the ground or through snow. Originally developed for Canadian mineral prospecting, it has the ability to distinguish between conductive and non-conductive materials and between magnetic and non-magnetic materials. It is therefore a potentially useful instrument for UXO detection and discrimination. At Site S-12, a 100m x 50m grid was established in an area thought to be on the periphery of the bombing target. Geophysical data using EM-61, and Beep Mat were collected over the grid at one meter line spacing. Both the EM-61 and the Beep Mat data produced similar maps showing locations of scrap and UXO, but Beep Mat anomaly peaks were randomly offset about 2m from EM-61 anomaly peaks.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.741
Threshold uncertainty score0.396

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue20th EEGS Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental ProblemsSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207