MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2557459010 · doi:10.1002/ppp.1932

Detection and Analysis of Ground Deformation in Permafrost Environments

2016· article· en· W2557459010 on OpenAlexaff
Lukas U. Arenson, Andreas Kääb, Antóin M. O’Sullivan

Bibliographic record

VenuePermafrost and Periglacial Processes · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsBGC Engineering (Canada)
FundersOffice for Coastal ManagementNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationEuropean Commission
KeywordsPermafrostPhotogrammetryRemote sensingGeologyClimate changeDeformation monitoringDeformation (meteorology)Adaptation (eye)Change detectionHigh resolutionEarth scienceEnvironmental sciencePhysical geographyEnvironmental resource managementGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In situ monitoring of periglacial dynamics is essential for the study of periglacial morphology and the design of mitigation and adaptation measures for infrastructure in permafrost zones. Evaluation of future effects of climate change on and from the periglacial environment requires understanding of surficial and internal deformation processes. Monitoring of internal deformation is still uncommon, primarily because of high costs. By contrast, major advancements in remote‐sensing technologies allow detailed assessment of surface deformation for large study areas. Technological advancements are anticipated to enhance spatial and temporal resolution, lighten sensors and improve unmanned aerial vehicles technology. The last of these will facilitate and reduce costs for data collection in remote areas under harsh climatic conditions. Increasing application of Structure‐from‐Motion, a photogrammetric image analysis technique, is anticipated, due to its precision, resolution, ease of usage and low cost. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.225
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations42
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePermafrost and Periglacial ProcessesSame topicClimate change and permafrostFrench-language works237,207