MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982158292 · doi:10.4095/293841

The Yellowknife seismic array: comparative study between the 2013 upgrade and its 1989 predecessor

2014· report· en· W2982158292 on OpenAlexaffabout
W. N. Edwards

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Waves and Analysis
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUpgradeGeologySeismologyGeochemistryComputer scienceOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Yellowknife Seismic Array (YKA) has been an active part of Canada's contribution to nuclear explosion monitoring for more than 50 years. Near continuous seismic monitoring of the globe has occurred at YKA for the telltale signs of nuclear explosion testing since its inception in 1962, resulting in thousands of tests being identified. To achieve such a track record, the array has undergone several upgrades to its technology and infrastructure to meet the demands of the time. After nearly 25 years of service since its switch from analog to digital recording, YKA has again undergone a significant recapitalization of its infrastructure to modern standards of digital seismic monitoring to meet the demands of its mandate as the primary array station PS09 in the International Monitoring System and Canada's commitment and obligations under the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. This report documents many of the changes made to the array during the upgrade through a data comparison by both the upgraded YKA and its predecessor collected simultaneously during the latter half of 2013. The comparison verifies the data quality of the new array, its readiness for inclusion into full operational status, and outlines recommendations for minor improvements prior to its recertification and the decommissioning of the former YKA.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.241
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSeismic Waves and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207