MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020518555 · doi:10.1002/esp.1741

Determining the number of manual measurements required to improve peat thickness estimations by ground penetrating radar

2008· article· en· W2020518555 on OpenAlexaffabout
Éric Rosa, Marie Larocque, Stéphanie Pellerin, Sylvain Gagné, Bertrand Fournier

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth Surface Processes and Landforms · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalEspace pour la vieUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeatGround-penetrating radarCalibrationRadarGeologyRemote sensingSoil scienceEnvironmental scienceStatisticsComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Ground penetrating radar (GPR) is often used for investigating peat thickness. The quality of GPR measurements depends on electromagnetic wave (EMW) velocity estimates. The objective of this study is to determine the number of manual measurements required to minimize EMW velocity error in peatlands. A total of 175 manually measured peat thicknesses are used with a depth‐to‐target method to assess EMW velocity in two southern Quebec peatlands. Mean measured EMW velocities are 0·040 and 0·039 m ns–1 with standard deviations of 0·013 and 0·008 m ns–1. Statistical analyses show that at least 30 calibration points are required to minimize the EMW velocity error, regardless of the geological setting. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.278
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

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 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

Citations39
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarth Surface Processes and LandformsSame topicGeophysical Methods and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207