MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117836138 · doi:10.2113/jeeg13.3.165

Assessing The Quality of Electromagnetic Data for The Discrimination of UXO Using Figures of Merit

2008· article· en· W2117836138 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersEnvironmental Security Technology Certification Program
KeywordsGeologyQuality (philosophy)Figure of meritData qualityRemote sensingSeismologyOpticsEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The need for assessing data quality in unexploded ordnance (UXO) remediation problems arises from two sources. In the planning stage it is essential that the data are acquired in sufficient numbers and with sufficient accuracy to answer the detection or discrimination problem of relevance. At the interpretation stage it is critical to objectively assess whether the data are of sufficient quality to warrant subsequent processing, inversion, and classification. Faced with this practical challenge of defining data quality we propose a Figure of Merit (FOM). FOM is a reliability indicator derived from quantities that affect the quality of data, such as anomaly coverage, line spacing, station spacing, instrument noise, survey location errors, etc. The FOM can also include informative features of the inversion, such as the variance of key model parameters, and thus it depends on the inverse model to be applied. Anomalies associated with higher values of FOM should have increased reliability in classification. Anomalies below a critical threshold will not be suitable for advanced analysis. In this paper, we apply the FOM framework to guide the practical interpretation of field data collected at Camp Sibert as part of the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) Discrimination Study Pilot Project. Using simulations of electromagnetic (EM) data for different quality of survey designs, we examine the success rate of inversions to identify key FOM parameters that can explain unreliable inversion results. In this manner, the relationship between FOM and reliability is calibrated on synthetic data before application to the interpretation of field data. A trust index for each inversion can subsequently be included into a discrimination algorithm to help establish a priority dig list. We find that incorporating the FOM in the classification procedure significantly reduces the number of non-UXO items that need to be excavated to recover all UXO.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score0.193

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.246 · 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