MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2486295023 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511977947.010

Ice shelves and icebergs

2011· book-chapter· en· W2486295023 on OpenAlexaffabout
Roger G. Barry, Thian Yew Gan

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIcebergOceanographySea iceGeologyArcticIce shelfBayArctic ice packCoast guardStormGeographyCryosphere

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

History The first observations of icebergs were probably made by Inuit hunters in the Arctic and then by early mariners, including Irish monks and Vikings. Martin Frobisher’s expeditions to Baffin Island in the 1570s to 1580s certainly witnessed them and whalers and sealers in Baffin Bay and the Greenland Sea frequently sheltered in their lee from storms and sea ice. Documentation of icebergs in the northwest Atlantic began in 1914 by the International Ice Patrol after the loss of the RMS Titanic , and over 1,500 lives, due to a collision with an iceberg in April 1912. The First International Conference for the Safety of Life at Sea established the Ice Patrol, operated by the US Coast Guard, in 1913. It conducts surveys of the icebergs that drift south of 48° N off Newfoundland. Initially this was from cutters, and then airborne reconnaissance flights started in 1946 using first visual observations; airborne radar studies began in 1957 and in 1983 Side-Looking Airborne Radar (SLAR) was deployed. After 1991 (1995) radar remote sensing made use of data from ERS-1 (ERS-2), and RADARSAT’s synthetic aperture radar (SAR), beginning in 1995. A major concern is the hazard to drilling platforms off the coast of Newfoundland.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.152

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.171
Teacher spread0.140 · 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
GenreOther

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooks→Same topicCryospheric studies and observations→French-language works237,207→