MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005887084 · doi:10.3189/172756400781820507

Predictions in avalanche forecasting

2000· article· en· W2005887084 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Glaciology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsForecast verificationScale (ratio)Computer scienceEntropy (arrow of time)Bayesian probabilityMeteorologyEconometricsArtificial intelligenceForecast skillCartographyGeographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Verification of avalanche forecasts depends on the spatial and temporal scale of the forecast, and the classes of informational entropy of data implicit in the forecast. First I present a classification system for avalanche forecasts based on these parameters. Verification of models in avalanche forecasting may consist of two stages. Often, the first stage is to ensure that the model matches the scales (space and time) and the classification of forecast and that redundant variables and parameters are eliminated. Once that is achieved, verification can proceed to the second stage, testing the model against relevant field data and situations. I provide an example based on the public-danger scale bulletin used for warnings in the back country in North America and Europe. Using data on deaths and accidents from Alpine Europe with Bayesian statistics, I conclude the danger scale has more classes than necessary for back-country applications. This could be a first stage prior to actual verification of this experience-based model.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0070.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.232 · 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