The use of Gaming and Geodata Visualisation in Preparation for High Arctic Research Fieldwork
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fieldwork is essential in many scientific disciplines, providing critical data for validating simulations and ground truthing. However, fieldwork is often costly, logistically challenging, and may require travel to remote or hazardous locations, necessitating thorough preparation and safety measures. Training in fieldwork skills begins at the university level, but proficiency is gained through experience over time. The University Centre in Svalbard emphasises Arctic fieldwork, integrating classroom instruction with on-site training. To enhance student preparation, we developed games and visualisation tools to help anticipate and manage fieldwork challenges. This article showcases several video games and outlines a guide for creating a video game using various data sources — satellite and aerial imagery, point clouds from remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) — to explore Svalbard’s landscape. This versatile approach can be adapted to other regions or applications. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are used to create thematic games, and we demonstrate visualisation techniques for teaching, publications, and outreach, including Virtual Reality (VR). Additionally, we explain how handheld LiDAR can scan and incorporate small local areas into the games, and how Micro-CT data can be used to explore microscale environments, such as a virtual flight through a snowpack. All methods use open-source products, or products with a limited, but free licence.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it