MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2250067270

Observing the snow and ice properties over the Labrador shelf with helicopter-borne Ground-Penetrating Radar, Laser and Electromagnetic sensors

2011· article· en· W2250067270 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
S.J. Prinsenberg, Ingrid Peterson, Scott Holliday, L. Lalumiere

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering Under Arctic Conditions · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologySnowGround-penetrating radarSea iceSubmarine pipelineSea ice thicknessRemote sensingArctic ice packRadarGeomorphologyMeteorologyOceanographyGeographyEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During March 2009, a unique data set was collected with helicopter-borne sensors from the Labrador shelf. For the first time a Ground-Penetrating-Radar (GPR) provided snow thicknesses and complemented the Electromagnetic-Laser (EM) and Video-Laser data sets to explain the ice and snow properties of the land-fast and mobile ice covers. Ice and snow thickness data were collected with helicopter-borne EM and GPR sensors along shoreward flight paths and video data with a video-laser system along seaward flight paths. A total of 550km of ice and snow thickness profile data was collected and a total of 550km of video data. As indicated by the RADARSAT-2 image, four distinct ice thickness regimes were seen. Offshore, small wave-broken floes existed with a very homogeneous 1.2m modal thickness. Inshore of this region, large floes were observed with the same modal thickness of 1.2m but having a larger thickness variability. Areas of open water and thin ice were seen offshore of the rough outer region of the land-fast ice. The GPR data showed that offshore the snow thickness appeared thinner as snow was continually blown from the ice into leads between the floes where it stimulated the formation of frazil ice.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.227
Threshold uncertainty score0.284

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.171 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering Under Arctic ConditionsSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207