MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067363266 · doi:10.1190/tle32050524.1

High Arctic marine geophysical data acquisition

2013· article· en· W2067363266 on OpenAlexaffabout
D. Mosher, C B Chapman, John Shimeld, H. R. Jackson, Deping Chian, J. Verhoef, D. R. Hutchinson, Nina Lebedeva‐Ivanova, R. Pederson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Leading Edge · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Studies and Exploration
Canadian institutionsDepartment of National DefenceGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBathymetryGeologyArcticReflection (computer programming)The arcticOceanographyData acquisitionSonarJoint (building)SeismologyRemote sensingEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite record-low sea ice extents over the past five years, the high Arctic Ocean remains one of the most difficult operational environments on Earth for marine geophysical data acquisition. Until 2006, the extent of seismic reflection data in the western Arctic Ocean (western, from a North American perspective) amounted to ∼3000 line-km. In 2008, the United States and Canada teamed up to embark on four years of joint marine operations to acquire in excess of 15,000 line-km of geophysical data reaching to the farthest points north. Each nation contributed an icebreaker to operate jointly to acquire seismic reflection, seismic refraction, shipborne gravity, single and multibeam bathymetry, and subbottom reflection data. This article presents some of the operational aspects of data acquisition in perennially ice-covered seas and demonstrates some of the outstanding data that resulted, focusing on the seismic components of the program. The multibeam-sonar component of the program is published by Armstrong et al. (2012).

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.525
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0040.011

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 head0.223
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations17
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Leading EdgeSame topicGeological Studies and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207