MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027873599 · doi:10.1139/l04-110

Apport de la technique du krigeage avec dérive externe pour une cartographie raisonnée de l'équivalent en eau de la neige : Application aux bassins de la rivière Gatineau

2005· article· en· W2027873599 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Dominique Tapsoba, Vincent Fortin, François Anctil, Mario Haché

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKrigingDigital elevation modelSnowElevation (ballistics)GeologyGeomorphologyHydrology (agriculture)MathematicsRemote sensingStatisticsGeometryGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The geostatistical algorithm of kriging with external drift (KED) is applied to the spatial estimation of snow water equivalent measured at single points. A digital elevation model with a 10-km resolution is used as external drift. Over the dense network of the period of interest (mid-March 1982), which corresponds to the maximum snow accumulation and the beginning of the snow melt in the Gatineau River basin, the KED technique is compared to the univariate ordinary kriging (OK). The results indicate a significant estimation precision improvement when the KED technique is used, notably in the under-sampled and extrapolated zones. A quantitative performance barometer — the root-mean-square (RMS) error — of this method with regards to the various degradation levels of the snow depth measurement network is proposed.Key words: snow water equivalent, kriging with external drift, root-mean-square errors, digital elevation model.[Journal translation]

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations35
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207