MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4235854869 · doi:10.3133/ofr20131268

Airborne geophysical surveys conducted in western Nebraska, 2010: contractor reports and data

2014· article· en· W4235854869 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueAntarctica A Keystone in a Changing World · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Geological Survey
KeywordsGeological surveyGeophysical surveyGeologyData processingGeophysicsArchaeologyGeographyDatabaseComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report contains three contractor reports and data files for an airborne electromagnetic survey flown from June 28 to July 7, 2010. The first report; “SkyTEM Survey: Nebraska, USA, Data” describes data aquisition and processing from a time-domain electromagnetic and magnetic survey performed by SkyTEM Canada, Inc. (the North American SkyTEM subsidiary), in western Nebraska, USA. Digital data for this report are given in Appendix 1. The airborne geophysical data from the SkyTEM survey subsequently were processed and inverted by Aarhus Geophysics ApS, Aarhus, Denmark, to produce resistivity depth sections along each flight line. The result of that processing is described in two reports presented in Appendix 2, “Processing and inversion of SkyTEM data from USGS Area UTM–13” and “Processing and inversion of SkyTEM data from USGS Area UTM–14.” Funding for these surveys was provided by the North Platte Natural Resources District, the South Platte Natural Resources District, and the Twin Platte Natural Resources District, in Scottsbluff, Sidney, and North Platte, Nebraska, respectively. Any additional information concerning the geophysical data may be obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey Crustal Geophysics and Geochemistry Science Center, Denver Colorado.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAntarctica A Keystone in a Changing WorldSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207