MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3190357564 · doi:10.1080/19236026.2020.1733361

Interpreting displacement data from complementary slope monitoring systems in extreme weather conditions

2020· article· en· W3190357564 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCIM Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsTeck (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisplacement (psychology)RadarWork (physics)Environmental scienceContinuous monitoringSuspectComputer scienceMeteorologyRemote sensingEngineeringGeologyGeographyOperations managementTelecommunicationsMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT As costs decrease for displacement monitoring radar units, open-pit operations increasingly incorporate multiple monitoring systems to track displacement of pit walls. At the Teck Resources Ltd. steelmaking coal operations in British Columbia and Alberta, Canada, a common practice is to couple a radar system with the installation of survey prisms. The two systems work in different ways and provide more continuous monitoring of displacement when one system is adversely affected by the punishing weather conditions at the mining operations. While there are circumstances when results from one system can be discounted, there are often instances when results from either system cannot be ignored even though they are suspect. This paper presents a methodology to evaluate results in such circumstances. It links the monitoring system status, pit-wall displacement trends, perceived risk, and recommended course of action in a manner that addresses the uncertainty of results from one or both systems.

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.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.726
Threshold uncertainty score0.352

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.173
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.157 · 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