MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2237504088 · doi:10.14358/pers.81.9.701

Filtering Global Land and Surface Altimetry Data (GLA14) for Elevation Accuracy Determination

2015· article· en· W2237504088 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jean-Samuel Proulx-Bourque, Ramata Magagi, Norman T. O’Neill

Bibliographic record

VenuePhotogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElevation (ballistics)AltimeterRemote sensingGeographyGeodesyCartographyGeologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper presents a filtering method for ices at Global Land Surface Altimetry data (GLA14), which is based on indicators to detect potentially contaminated GLA14 elevation points. Potential contamination sources include attitude miscalculation, saturated echoes, equipment noise, the atmosphere, and variable elevation within footprints. For a study site located in Northern Canada, this multi-indicator filter provided a 19 percent reduction in the root mean square error for elevation, when compared to Canadian Digital Elevation Data (CDED). This result dem onstrates the method’s ability to provide an improved dataset for vertical accuracy evaluation, with respect to unfiltered GLA14 data. The improvement was achieved with a rejection rate of 69 percent. However, due to the high density of the unfiltered GLA14 data over the study site, a spatially homogeneous distribution of elevation points was maintained, even after filtering. Results also showed the rejection efficiency of most indicators, as well as their complementarity.

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)0.002
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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhotogrammetric Engineering & Remote SensingSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207