MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392642750 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu24-22282

A data-driven approach to understanding esker morphogenesis

2024· preprint· en· W4392642750 on OpenAlexaff
Meaghan Dinney, Tracy A. Brennand

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEvolutionary Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMorphogenesisComputer scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eskers are ubiquitous features on previously glaciated landscapes, recording the configuration and dynamics of the channelized meltwater system. Studies of esker composition and form have resulted in a variety of genetic interpretations surrounding the ice, water, and sediment characteristics under which they may develop. However, issues of apparent equifinality currently limit the usefulness of eskers for reconstructing broad-scale glacial hydrology. Although some authors have attempted to asses esker morphogenesis, previous studies are limited by their small sample size and/or use of qualitative morphometric indices.This project aims to explore whether eskers have a distinct morphogenetic signature using data science techniques. Published research has been mined for empirical studies of esker composition and structure. These data were compiled into a database summarizing the genetic interpretations commonly invoked for eskers (e.g., depositional environment, meltwater flow regime) as well as the supporting evidence for such inferences (e.g., sedimentary logs). Semi-automated methods will be tested to map eskers from high resolution (1-2 metres) LiDAR digital terrain models and to extract their morphometry. A range of planform- and profile-scale morphometric indices will be employed and new indices that can more precisely quantify esker morphometry will be developed.The resulting highly-dimensional dataset can be analyzed using machine learning techniques in order to assess the relationships between sedimentologic, morphometric, and genetic variables. Preliminary results from database development and analysis will be presented and methodological concerns will be discussed.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.149
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.163 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEvolutionary Algorithms and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207