MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4252660999 · doi:10.4095/220059

A Soil Moisture Sensorweb for Use in Flood Forecasting Applications

2003· report· en· W4252660999 on OpenAlexaffabout
P M Teillet, R P Gauthier, T J Pultz, A Deschamps, G Fedosejevs, M Maloley, G Ainsley, A Chichagov

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality Monitoring Technologies
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlood mythEnvironmental scienceFlood forecastingMoistureWater contentHydrology (agriculture)MeteorologyGeologyGeographyGeotechnical engineeringArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes work towards building an integrated Earth sensing capability and focuses on the demonstration of a prototype in-situ sensorweb in remote operation in support of flood forecasting. A five-node sensorweb was deployed in the Roseau River Sub-Basin of the Red River Watershed in Manitoba, Canada in September 2002 and remained there throughout the flood season until the end of June 2003. The sensorweb operated autonomously, with soil moisture measurements and standard meteorological parameters accessed remotely via land line and/or satellite from the Integrated Earth Sensing Workstation (IESW) at the Canada Centre for Remote Sensing (CCRS) in Ottawa. Independent soil moisture data were acquired from actual grab samples and field-portable sensors on the days of RADARSAT and Envisat Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) data acquisitions. The in-situ data were used to help generate spatial soil moisture estimates from the remotely sensed SAR data for use in a hydrological model for flood forecasting.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.181 · 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
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWater Quality Monitoring TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207