Airborne geophysical surveys conducted in western Nebraska, 2010: contractor reports and data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.009 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".