MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323784881 · doi:10.4095/331504

Geological interpretation of Halifax Harbour, Nova Scotia, Canada

2023· report· en· W4323784881 on OpenAlexaffabout
G B J Fader, R O Miller, B J Todd

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBathymetrySeabedHydrographyGeologyBathymetric chartOceanographyHydrographic surveyHarbourNova scotiaSound (geography)SonarEcho soundingUnderwaterRemote sensingGeological surveyComputer scienceGeophysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An important part of seabed mapping is understanding the shape of the seabed and the depth of water. Hydrographic charts are produced for this purpose by the Canadian Hydrographic Service. During the final survey stages of the Harbour a new technology called multibeam bathymetry became available for high resolution mapping. This system uses transducers (sound sources) mounted on a ship that produce many independent sound beams and can map a large swath of the seabed at one time covering 100% of the bottom. The images that are produced are computer shaded to look as if the water is drained and you are flying over the area. They are the underwater equivalent of aerial photographs of the adjacent land. Because the information is collected digitally, many different kinds of maps can be produced to show subtle aspects of sediment deposition, erosion, and seabed features. The information can also be displayed using various colour schemes to represent seabed shape and computer generated fly-throughs can be produced. The multibeam bathymetric images nicely complement the other geological data sets.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.153

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0460.008

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.229 · 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
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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUnderwater Acoustics ResearchFrench-language works237,207