MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2217449901 · doi:10.5194/tc-10-1245-2016

Which are the highest peaks in the US Arctic? Fodar settles the debate

2016· article· en· W2217449901 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Matt Nolan, Kit Deslauriers

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œcryosphere · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Geological SurveyU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceNational Geographic SocietyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGlacierArcticGeologyPhysical geographyThe arcticLandformGeodetic datumSummitClimatologyGeodesyGeomorphologyGeographyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Though an outstanding achievement for their time, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps of the eastern Alaskan Arctic nonetheless contain significant errors, and in this paper we address one of them. Specifically, USGS maps of different scale made in the late 1950s alternate between Mt. Chamberlin and Mt. Isto as the tallest peak in the US Arctic. Given that many of the peaks here are close in height and covered with glaciers, recent climate change may also have changed their height and their order. We resolved these questions using fodar, a new airborne photogrammetric technique that utilizes structure-from-motion (SfM) software and requires no ground control, and validated it using GPS measurements on the peaks as well as airborne lidar. Here we show that Mt. Chamberlin is currently the third tallest peak and that the order and elevations of the five tallest mountains in the US Arctic are Mt. Isto (2735.6 m), Mt. Hubley (2717.6 m), Mt. Chamberlin (2712.3 m), Mt. Michelson (2698.1 m), and an unnamed peak (2694.9 m); these heights are relative to the NAVD88 GEOID12A vertical datum. We find that it is indeed plausible that this ranking has changed over time and may continue to change as summit glaciers continue to shrink, though Mt. Isto will remain the highest under current climate trends. Mt. Isto is also over 100 m taller than the highest peak in Arctic Canada, making it the highest peak in the North American Arctic. Fodar elevations compared to within a few centimeters of our ground-based GPS measurements of the peaks made a few days later and our complete validation assessment indicates a measurement uncertainty of better than ±20 cm (95 % RMSE). By analyzing time series of fodar maps, we were able to detect topographic change on the centimeter level on these steep slopes, indicating that fodar can be used to measure mountain snow packs for water resource availability or avalanche danger, glacier volume change, and slope subsidence, as well as many other applications of benefit to society. Compared to lidar, the current state-of-the-art airborne topographic mapping, we found this SfM technique as accurate, more useful scientifically, and significantly less expensive, suggesting that fodar is a disruptive innovation that will enjoy widespread usage in the future.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œcryosphereSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207