MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4290949219 · doi:10.15485/1571527

Pan-arctic river bank erosion and accretion, and planform metrics measured over intervals ranging from 1973 to 2016

2019· dataset· en· W4290949219 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J. C. Rowland, Sophie Stauffer

Bibliographic record

VenueOSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) · 2019
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMethane Hydrates and Related Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlanformBank erosionAccretion (finance)ErosionArcticGeologyBankRangingHydrology (agriculture)OceanographyPhysical geographyGeomorphologyGeographyGeotechnical engineeringGeodesyEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This dataset provides the tabular summary of analysis of 17 reaches of 15 Arctic rivers for river bank erosion and accretion rates, as well as, river channel properties such as channel width, bank curvature, and the aspect/orientation of the river banks. These rivers include the: Chandalar River, Alaska, Colville River, Alaska; Indigirka River, Russia; Kolyma River, Russia; Koyukuk River, Alaska; Lena River, Alaska; Noatak River, Alaska; Ob River, Russia; Pechora River, Russia; Tanana River, Alaska, Selawik River, Alaska; Taz River, Russia; Yana River, Russia; Yenisei River, Russia; and the Yukon River, Alaska. The dataset was generated from a total of 129 images including: Landsat, higher resolution satellite imagery, and aerial photography over time periods ranging from the 1970s and 2016. A full list of the image dates, row and path (for Landsat), and pixel resolutions is provided in the dataset. Masks for the Chandalar River, Tanana River, and Yukon at Holy Cross were obtained from Brown et al. (2020). The masks were analyzed using the Spatially Continuous Riverbank Erosion and Accretion Measurements (SCREAM) software detailed in Rowland et al. 2016. The masks used in this analysis can be found an accompanying dataset (doi:10.15485/1571527).In files with “summary” in the name, the data is provided at a pixel level, where each mapped bank pixel has an associated erosion or accretion value, a channel width, a curvature value, and an aspect each river and time period will have an individual file. Files with “Segments” in name provide data that is averaged along segments of the rivers. These data are consolidated into a single file each for the erosion and accretion measurements. These segments are approximately 10 channel widths in length. In addition to erosion and accretion rates, the segment-based results include area measurements of erosion and accretion, islands, and channels. Revisions 2023:-Data added for the Koyukuk River for time periods of 1978-2012, 1978-2018, and 2012-2018. ---Data added from the Chandalar River, Tanana River, and Yukon River at Holy Cross based on masks obtained from Brown et al. (2020).-Updated the values for Drainage area and river slope, see methods below-Added values for meant topographic slope for upstream contributing area, long term averaged annual maximum monthly flow, average annual maximum monthly flow for the time period of erosion record, and added the river slope extracted from the Lin et al. (2020) data product.-Add field for River Planform Multi threaded (M) or Single threaded-Added ‘ConsolidatedErosionSegments.csv’ which provides the same data as AllRiversErosionSegments.csv rebinned with averages along river segments based on upstream drainage area instead of channel segments based on lengths set to approximately 10 channel widths.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.202

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.005

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations15
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information)Same topicMethane Hydrates and Related PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207