MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963321073 · doi:10.3389/feart.2019.00197

The State of Remote Sensing Capabilities of Cascading Hazards Over High Mountain Asia

2019· article· en· W2963321073 on OpenAlexaff
Dalia Kirschbaum, C. Scott Watson, David R. Rounce, Dan H. Shugar, Jeffrey S. Kargel, Umesh K. Haritashya, Pukar Amatya, David Shean, Eric Anderson, Minjeong Jo

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Earth Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNuclear Safety and Security CommissionJapan Aerospace Exploration AgencyNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsHazardTerrainWork (physics)Remote sensingSnowEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceResource (disambiguation)Natural hazardEnvironmental resource managementEarth scienceGeologyGeographyMeteorologyCartographyEngineeringEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cascading hazard processes refer to a primary trigger such as heavy rainfall, seismic activity, or snow melt, followed by a chain or web of consequences that can cause subsequent hazards influenced by a complex array of preconditions and vulnerabilities. These interact in multiple ways and can have tremendous impacts on populations proximate to or downstream of these initial triggers. High Mountain Asia (HMA) is extremely vulnerable to cascading hazard processes given the tectonic, geomorphologic, and climatic setting of the region, particularly as it relates to glacial lakes. Given the limitations of in situ surveys in steep and often inaccessible terrain, remote sensing data are a valuable resource for better understanding and quantifying these processes. The present work provides a survey of cascading hazard processes impacting HMA and how these can be characterized using remote sensing sources. We discuss how remote sensing products can be used to address these process chains, citing several examples of cascading hazard scenarios across HMA. This work also provides a perspective on the current gaps and challenges, community needs, and view forward towards improved characterization of evolving hazards and risk across HMA.

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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations123
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Earth ScienceSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207