MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097340226 · doi:10.1109/lgrs.2009.2038178

Spatial–Temporal Variability of Great Slave Lake Levels From Satellite Altimetry

2010· article· en· W2097340226 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sergio Sarmiento, Shuhab D. Khan

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAltimeterEnvironmental scienceGlacierSatelliteBayWater levelSpatial variabilityShoreElevation (ballistics)ClimatologyGeologyClimate changePhysical geographyRange (aeronautics)OceanographyRemote sensingGeomorphologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study of lake-level variability of five selected areas across Great Slave Lake (GSL) using satellite altimetry is presented. Data from Topex/Poseidon (TP) and Jason-1 (J1) missions at GSL for the ice-free seasons of 1993-2002 and 2002-2008, respectively, reveal lower performance of J1 for areas closer to 20 km from the coastline compared to 10 km for TP. A calculated bias of 6.99 cm was subtracted to J1 range since TP has better tracking of shoreline waters and lower data rejection. High correlation coefficients for the relative rate of change between lake altimetry heights (LAHs) and corresponding gauge data for Yellowknife Bay and Hay River support the use of LAH changes as effective indicators of variability at GSL. Differences in LAH between the five areas indicate a nonuniform slope which we relate more to variability of the surface water temperature distribution than wind effects. The deeper and colder areas are associated to the least change of LAH gradient through time; therefore, they represent ideal areas to study interannual climate variability. A potential correlation between areas with higher variability in LAH gradients and higher changes in modeled surface water temperatures during the 2003 ice free season is observed.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.703
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing LettersSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207