CHS Priority Planning Tool (CPPT)—A GIS Model for Defining Hydrographic Survey and Charting Priorities
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a geographic information system (GIS) model that the Canadian Hydrographic Service (CHS) developed to prioritize hydrographic survey and charting at a national scale. Canada has the largest coastline in the world; determining its survey and charting priorities at a national scale is a challenging task, requiring sufficient data to provide national coverage. In order to achieve this task and manage the geospatial layers, CHS has developed a GIS-based model, the CHS Priority Planning Tool (CPPT). Geospatial information of navigational significance (e.g., traffic patterns, water depth, and infrastructure) have been compiled into a GIS model to identify where CHS’s hydrographic survey and charting priorities exist. Probability risk modelling, such as a risk of grounding and collision model, as well as a drift model, are included in the CPPT to ensure that CHS has proper mitigation measures in “high-risk” areas. Other environmental factors such as ice and wind speed are also included to help define national priorities for CHS. The CPPT is operational and is currently being used to define and prioritize CHS’s survey and charting requirements nationally for multiple years. A GIS web tool has been developed to facilitate accessibility for all Department of Fisheries and Oceans employees and to aid in decision making regarding CHS’s national priorities.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it