MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387670886 · doi:10.1002/ppp.2207

Best practices for using electrical resistivity tomography to investigate permafrost

2023· article· en· W4387670886 on OpenAlexafffund
Teddi Herring, Antoni G. Lewkowicz, Christian Hauck, Christin Hilbich, Coline Mollaret, Greg A. Oldenborger, Sebastian Uhlemann, Mohammad Farzamian, Fabrice Calmels, Riccardo Scandroglio

Bibliographic record

VenuePermafrost and Periglacial Processes · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsYukon UniversityGeological Survey of CanadaNatural Resources CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPermafrostElectrical resistivity tomographyElectrical resistivity and conductivityGeologyElectric resistivityEarth scienceEarth materialsField (mathematics)Remote sensingGeophysicsSoil scienceEngineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) is a minimally invasive geophysical method that produces a model of subsurface resistivity from a large number of electrical resistance measurements. Strong resistivity contrasts usually exist between frozen and unfrozen earth materials, making ERT an effective and increasingly utilized tool in permafrost research. In this paper, we review more than 300 scientific publications dating from 2000 to 2022 to identify the capabilities and limitations of ERT for permafrost applications. The annual publication rate has increased by a factor of 10 over this period, but several unique challenges remain, and best practices for acquiring, processing, and interpreting ERT data in permafrost environments have not been clearly established. In this paper, we make recommendations for ERT surveys of permafrost and highlight recent advances in the field, with the objective of maximizing the utility of existing and future surveys.

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)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.068
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.184

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.068
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0100.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations54
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePermafrost and Periglacial ProcessesSame topicClimate change and permafrostFrench-language works237,207