MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026363206 · doi:10.1029/2005eo410003

Satellite imagery maps Hurricane Katrina‐induced flooding and oil slicks

2005· article· en· W2026363206 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
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

VenueEos · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Space AgencyU.S. Geological Survey
KeywordsHurricane katrinaStorm surgeFlooding (psychology)LandfallStormNatural disasterFlood mythEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyNatural hazardOceanographyHydrology (agriculture)GeographyGeologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the early morning of 29 August 2005, Hurricane Katrina made landfall near Buras, Louisiana, as a Category 4 hurricane. With wind speeds of about 233 kilometers per hour, a storm surge of 8.5 meters, and heavy rains, Katrina pounded the U.S. Gulf Coast states of Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi with lifethreatening flooding and destruction. Katrina's high winds and storm surge breached the levees protecting New Orleans, a city located below sea level, and flooded approximately 80% of the city. Katrina also caused major damage to the region's oil and natural gas production and refining capabilities. On 2 September 2005, the Associated Press reported that Katrina had damaged 58 oil platforms, 30 of which were reported lost; one damaged platform had been blown nearly 100 km from its original location.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.399
Threshold uncertainty score0.582

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.236 · 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