MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982165829 · doi:10.4095/297428

Morewood Ontario aeromagnetic calibration range

2015· report· en· W2982165829 on OpenAlexaffabout
F. Kiss

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Waves and Analysis
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCalibrationRange (aeronautics)GeologyAeromagnetic surveyGeodesyRemote sensingMathematicsEngineeringStatisticsPhysicsAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An aeromagnetic calibration range has been established at Morewood, Ontario. The range is in close proximity to the Ottawa, Ontario geomagnetic observatory and in an area of low magnetic gradient. An airborne survey of the range was flown under contract to Natural Resources Canada by Geo Data Solutions Inc. of Montreal, Quebec. The survey consisted of traverses with a calibrated aircraft flown at a series of heights along the four cardinal directions. Magnetic data were acquired that profile the magnetic field above the traverse intersection point. From these airborne magnetic data and the magnetic diurnal variation data from the geomagnetic observatory, a magnetic offset constant between the Morewood site and the observatory was established at a height of 1500 ft. (457.2 m) above the site. Aeromagnetic survey aircraft acquire data over the range, remove the diurnal variation determined from geomagnetic observatory data, and apply the offset constant to calculate the aircraft's magnetic error.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.245

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0730.014

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 head0.238
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSeismic Waves and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207