MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Reply on RC2

2024· peer-review· en· W4391718350 on OpenAlexaffabout
Monojit Saha

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepeer-review
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Observations of snow on Arctic sea ice are vitally important for sea ice thickness estimation as well as for understanding bio-physical processes and human-activities. This study is the first assessment of the potential for near-coincident ICESat-2 and Cryosat-2 (Cryo2Ice) snow depth retrievals in a lead-less region of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. Snow depths are retrieved using the absolute difference in surface height from a near-coincident ICESat-2 and Cryosat-2 after applying an ocean tide correction between satellite passes 77 minutes apart. Both the absolute mean snow depths and snow depth distributions retrieved from Cryo2Ice compare favourably to in-situ measurements. All four in-situ sites had snow with saline basal layers and different levels of roughness/ridging. The retrieved Cryo2Ice snow depths were underestimated by an average of 20.7 % which is slightly higher than the tidal adjustment applied. Differences in the Cryo2Ice and in-situ snow depth distributions reflected the different sampling resolutions between the sensors and the in-situ measurements, with more heavily ridged areas producing larger mean underestimation of the snow depth. Results suggest the possibility of estimating snow depth over lead-less landfast sea ice but attributing 2–3 cm biases to differences in sampling resolution, snow salinity, density, surface roughness and/or errors in altimeter’s tidal corrections require further investigation.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0220.020
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1220.111

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.327 · 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
GenreEditorial

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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology→French-language works237,207→