MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147673253

To the North Coast of Devon: Collaborative Navigation While Exploring Unfamiliar Terrain

2006· article· en· W2147673253 on OpenAlexaffabout
William J. Clancey, Pascal Lee, Charles S. Cockell, Stephen Braham, Mike Shafto

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographic Information Systems Studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerrainPlan (archaeology)Variety (cybernetics)Task (project management)Computer scienceCompassGeographyRoute planningWork (physics)Human–computer interactionArtificial intelligenceCartographyEngineeringTransport engineeringSystems engineeringArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Navigation—knowing where one is and finding a safe route—is a fundamental aspect of all exploration. In unfamiliar terrain, one may use maps and instruments such as a compass or binoculars to assist, and people often collaborate in finding their way. This paper analyzes a group of people driving a humvee from a base camp to the north coast of Devon Island in the High Canadian Arctic. A complete audio recording and video during most stops allows a quantitative and semantic analysis of the conversations when the team stopped to take bearings and replan a route. Over a period of 2 hours, the humvee stopped 20 times, with an average duration of 3.15 min/pause and 3.85 min moving forward. The team failed to reach its goal due to difficult terrain causing mechanical problems. The analysis attempts to explain these facts by considering a variety of complicating factors, especially the navigation problem of relating maps and the world to locate the humvee and to plan a route. The analysis reveals patterns in topic structure and turn-taking, supporting the view that the collaboration was efficient, but the tools and information were

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.237
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeographic Information Systems StudiesFrench-language works237,207