Tasks and achievements of the FIG Working Group on deformation measurements and analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: The FIG Working Group 6.1 (WG6.1), established in 1969, provides an international forum for the exchange of information on new developments in measurements and analysis of structural and ground deformation by organizing specialized international symposia and by creating international ad hoc committees (Task Forces) to solve special problems in the deformable world. Between 1975 and 2006, WG6.1 organized 12 symposia and two workshops. Between 1978 and 1986, an ad hoc committee (Task Force 6.1.1) on Deformation Analysis solved problems of the identification of unstable reference points and developed a Generalized Method for Geometrical Analysis of Deformation Measurements. In 2001, Task Force 6.1.2 presented a report on Terminology and Classification of Deformation Models. Currently, four additional Task Forces are working on various aspects of Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) applications in deformation determination, on the optimal use of laser scanners, on the analysis of cyclic deformations and vibrations,
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.035 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.030 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".