MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2462893988

Tasks and achievements of the FIG Working Group on deformation measurements and analysis

2006· article· en· W2462893988 on OpenAlexaff
Adam Chrzanowski

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHermeneutics and Narrative Identity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerminologyGeodetic datumDeformation (meteorology)Task (project management)Computer scienceIdentification (biology)GeodesyArtificial intelligenceEngineeringOperations researchGeologyGeographySystems engineeringMeteorology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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 score0.169
Threshold uncertainty score0.904

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations3
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHermeneutics and Narrative IdentityFrench-language works237,207