MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138448986

NEAR INFRARED PHOTOGRAPHY TO QUANTIFY TEMPORAL CHANGES IN MELT-FREE ZE CRUSTS

2010· article· en· W2138448986 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michael A. Smith, Bruce Jamieson

Bibliographic record

Venue2010 International Snow Science Workshop · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnowAerial photographySnowpackPhotographyRemote sensingGeologyStratigraphyPhysical geographyGeomorphologyGeographyPaleontologyVisual arts
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective quantification of snowpack stratigraphy is a difficult task, especially when multiple ob- servers may be tracking changes over time. Properties such as grain type and size, though well defined by various snow observation guidelines, are often interpreted differently. One potential solution is the use of near infrared (NIR) photography to track the specific surface area (SSA) of a given layer. Processed images provide a quantitative measure of in-situ grain morphology free of any requirements for interpretation in the field. For the past two winters the Applied Snow and Avalanche Research Group at the University of Calgary has used NIR photography to track changes in and around buried melt-freeze crusts in the Columbia Mountains of western Canada. Eight crusts were tracked using both NIR and manual observations for periods ranging from 5 to 12 weeks. This paper describes the methods used and presents results from this study. Advantages of the method over traditional observations are also discussed, as are challenges encountered over the past two seasons.

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)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2010 International Snow Science WorkshopSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207