MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912926897 · doi:10.4031/mtsj.52.3.20

Lessons Learned in Developing a Canadian Operational Glider Fleet

2018· article· en· W2912926897 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Richard Davis, Adam Comeau, Sue L'Orsa, Jude Van Der Meer, Brad Covey, Jonathan Pye, Frederick G. Whoriskey

Bibliographic record

VenueMarine Technology Society Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUnderwater Vehicles and Communication Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGliderUnderwater gliderOcean observationsGovernment (linguistics)SustainabilityFleet managementExcellenceTracking (education)AeronauticsAdaptation (eye)Environmental resource managementComputer scienceBusinessEngineeringEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyMarine engineeringGeographyTelecommunicationsPolitical scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Canada's expanding “Blue Economy” requires a major expansion of existing ocean monitoring if developments are to be sustainably managed. Dalhousie University, the Ocean Tracking Network, and the Marine Environmental Observation Prediction and Response Network of Centers of Excellence have operated a mixed fleet of gliders for 7 years on missions covering >50,000 km. The data from these missions are used by research programs, nongovernmental organizations, and government agencies. The gliders have proven to be reliable platforms for ocean observation, collecting data in inclement weather, and times of the year when it is difficult to get ships at sea. However, glider operations have a steep learning curve, and much of the expertise that resides within an operational glider group is gleaned through experience. Managing glider data also poses significant challenges. Planning, risk management, rapid adaptation to the unexpected, and dedicated highly qualified personnel are the keys to sustaining successful glider operations.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.857
Threshold uncertainty score0.965

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMarine Technology Society JournalSame topicUnderwater Vehicles and Communication SystemsFrench-language works237,207