MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909291647 · doi:10.4095/212696

Remote sensing as a geological mapping tool in the Arctic: preliminary results for Baffin Island, Nunavut

2001· report· en· W2909291647 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jeffrey R. Harris, Bambang Trisetyo Eddy, A N Rencz, E A de Kemp, P Budkewitsch, M Peshko

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArcticGeologyOceanographyThe arcticRemote sensingPhysical geographyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A study involving the application of remote sensing technology for geological mapping in arctic environments has been initiated in southern Baffin Island. Various remotely sensed imagery, characterized by different wavelengths and spatial and spectral resolutions, have been or is presently being acquired. This area has been chosen as it represents a typical arctic geological and biophysical environment. It has a variety of lithologies ranging from gneissic and/or granitoid basement rocks to rift-related volcanic and sedimentary rocks to younger overlying Paleozoic sediments, and has been mapped on a regional scale (1:100 000) by the Geological Survey of Canada.Particularly relevant for this project is the recent advancement of hyperspectral remote-sensing technology. Eleven lines of high-resolution hyperspectral data have been acquired using the Noranda Probe sensor over the study area. Preliminary results indicate that the optical sensors (Landsat TMand Probe) provide useful information with respect to compositional layering, structural patterns, and vegetation.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.152

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations4
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207