MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2565071272 · doi:10.1109/oceans.2016.7761432

Testing of Ice Profiler Sonar (IPS) targets using a logarithmic detector

2016· article· en· W2565071272 on OpenAlexaff
Ed Ross, Murray Clarke, David B. Fissel, R.A.J. Chave, Paul Johnston, Jan Buermans, David Lemon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsASL Environmental Sciences (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSea iceSonarRemote sensingKeelGeologyArcticIcebergMarine engineeringEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyOceanographyEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Upward-looking sonar (ULS) instruments have become the primary source of data for high resolution and long duration measurements of sea ice drafts to support engineering requirements for oil and gas exploration projects, along with long-term scientific studies of the underside of the sea-ice canopy in the Arctic and other ice-infested areas. ASL's Ice Profiler Sonar (IPS) has been widely used to provide continuous accurate measurements for ice draft at a horizontal resolution of 1 m, which enables the measurement of ice thickness values over periods from 1-2 seconds up to several years, as well as detailed characterization of many hundreds to thousands of keel shapes and other ice features. In 2014, an important redesign of the IPS instrument was initiated to provide improved performance of the original instrument developed in the 1990s and last upgraded by ASL Environmental Sciences Inc. in 2007-2008.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics→French-language works237,207→