MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997275685

Using Fuzzy-Set Classification to Analyse Sea-Level Indicators With Respect to Glacial-Isostatic Adjustment

2004· article· en· W2997275685 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Volker Klemann, Detlef Wolf

Bibliographic record

VenuePublication Database GFZ (GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences) · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrological Forecasting Using AI
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPost-glacial reboundGlacial periodGeologySea levelSet (abstract data type)Physical geographyComputer scienceGeomorphologyGeographyOceanography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The intepretation of sea-level indicators (SLIs) in terms of glacial-isostatic adjustment (GIA) has usually been based on neighbouring SLIs grouped into a single sea-level curve, which is then assumed to represent the Holocene sea-level change in that region. In this method, the nominal height and age of a particular SLI are the only characteristics considered in the inference of the former sea-level height. However, only isolation basins yield a narrow range for sea level, whereas SLIs based on samples, such as flotsam, shells or peat, only allow the determination of an upper or lower bound or a range for it. To use also these types of sample properly, we have developed a classification scheme based on Fuzzy logic. After the defintion of appropriate membership functions, this method leads to a more systematic and realistic interpretation of the large amount of SLIs available. We apply this method to SLIs from several regions in Canada and demonstrate how it modifies the inference of GIA for a particular region and, thus, the determination of mantle viscosity.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublication Database GFZ (GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences)Same topicHydrological Forecasting Using AIFrench-language works237,207