Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Glacier velocity measurements are essential to understand ice flow mechanics, monitor natural hazards, and make accurate projections of future sea-level rise. Despite these important applications, the method most commonly used to derive glacier velocity maps, feature tracking, relies on empirical parameter choices that rarely account for glacier physics or uncertainty. Here we test two statistics- and physics-based metrics to assess velocity maps from a range of existing feature-tracking workflows at Kaskawulsh Glacier, Canada. Based on inter-comparisons with ground-truth data, velocity maps with metrics falling within our recommended ranges contain fewer erroneous measurements and more spatially correlated noise than velocity maps with metrics that deviate from those ranges. Thus, these metric ranges are suitable for refining feature-tracking workflows and evaluating the resulting velocity products. We have released an open-source software package for computing and visualizing these metrics, the GLAcier Feature Tracking testkit (GLAFT).
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 | 0.004 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.257 | 0.200 |
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".