MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990701361 · doi:10.20381/ruor-24102

Validation of Surface Elevation from TanDEM-X Digital Elevation Models of Devon Island Ice Cap, Canadian High Arctic

2019· dissertation· en· W2990701361 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Claire Bernard-Grand'Maison

Bibliographic record

VenueuO Research (University of Ottawa) · 2019
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElevation (ballistics)Digital elevation modelIce capsArcticThe arcticGeologyClimatologyPhysical geographyGeographyRemote sensingOceanographyEngineeringGlacier

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Digital elevation models (DEMs) generated by the TanDEM-X mission from synthetic aperture radar interferometry (InSAR) provide an excellent potential resource to study the geodetic mass balance of glaciers. However, they typically suffer from a negative bias in surface elevations on glacierized terrain due to penetration of radar waves into the snowpack and firn. In this thesis, TanDEM-X DEMs from 2010 to 2018 over Devon Island Ice Cap (DIC), Canadian High Arctic, are validated using independent surface elevation datasets from ArcticDEM, IceBridge laser altimetry and ground GPS transects. In agreement with previous studies using TanDEM-X DEMs, the bias is most significant in the percolation and saturation zones (i.e., accumulation area), where volume scattering and loss of interferometric coherence is greatest compared to the bare ice zone. The average elevation bias on DIC is -2.74 ±0.25 m, which should be accounted for in error budgets for geodetic mass balance estimates to be reliable.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueuO Research (University of Ottawa)Same topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207