MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2791723835 · doi:10.22215/etd/2018-12697

Towards improved monitoring of changing permafrost by estimating soil characteristics from ground temperature time-series

2018· dissertation· en· W2791723835 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas Brown

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPermafrostSoil scienceWater contentSaturation (graph theory)Environmental scienceCalibrationHydrology (agriculture)Geotechnical engineeringMathematicsStatisticsEngineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Knowledge of subsurface liquid water content is important in permafrost but continuous measurements are rarely collected at monitoring sites.Two parameter estimation methods are used to estimate soil thermal properties and freezing characteristic curves (SFCC) from temperature time series in order to calculate changes in ground liquid water content.Tests with synthetic data show that even with the addition of noise, estimated SFCCs are visually similar to their true shape.Overall, saturation water content and freezing temperature are easiest to estimate, whereas heat capacity and the van Genuchten n parameter, which controls the curvature of the SFCC, are more difficult.Different calibration periods may result in high variability for estimates of low sensitivity parameters.Weighting model error by ground energy content underestimates saturation water content, but provides good estimates of freezing point temperature.Applying these techniques at monitoring sites encounters challenges when model structure is not well chosen.

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)0.002
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicClimate change and permafrost→French-language works237,207→