MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4385362114 · doi:10.3997/2214-4609.202320030

Distributed Acoustic Sensing and Machine Learning: Rockfall Detection at Mt. Meager, B.C.

2023· article· en· W4385362114 on OpenAlexaff
J. Mish, Robert J. Ferguson, C. Mosher

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRockfallComputer scienceSeismometerArtificial intelligenceArtificial neural networkMachine learningEvent (particle physics)Scale (ratio)Data miningSeismologyLandslideGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary We implement machine learning for rockfall event detection based on 24 hours of Distributed Acoustic Sensing (DAS) data, acquired at Mt. Meager British Columbia. The data from September 29, 2019 is sliced into 10 second image frames, making 8640 images, with manual classification of the first 83 minutes. Three predictive neural networks based on three distinct DAS pre-processing flows provide three sets of rockfall event detections that I compare to those that register on a co-located, 3C seismometer. Each model is successful and identifies events, we find that pre-processing has notable effects on the model predictions. Each appears to be successful, but it is difficult to identify which performs the best without large scale manual classification. In the future, we plan to improve the models by increasing the amount of training data using the already existing predictions and building in-depth statistics to understand the accuracy of our models.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.608
Threshold uncertainty score0.779

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLandslides and related hazards→French-language works237,207→