MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Comment on egusphere-2025-1801

2025· peer-review· en· W4413198314 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepeer-review
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsYukon UniversityCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. The melting of ground ice poses significant hazards in permafrost regions, making effective detection methods essential. Conventional geophysical techniques like electrical resistivity, seismic surveys, or ground-penetrating radar alone often produce ambiguous results due to the overlap of material characteristics between frozen and unfrozen ground. This study addresses these limitations by using the dielectric relaxation time of ice as a unique indicator of ground ice. We developed a method to quantify relaxation time from Spectral Induced Polarization (SIP) data measured by the FUCHS III device. The method's effectiveness was demonstrated through synthetic data and two field surveys. SIP field measurements, ranging from 1.46 Hz to 40 kHz, were conducted on a retrogressive thaw slump and a pingo in Yukon, Canada. The extracted relaxation times were mapped to pseudo-depths obtained from single-frequency inversion. This study proposes a relaxation time range from 10 to 400 µs for ground ice, and the results demonstrate that this range can detect ground ice spectra in field studies. Comparison with observations in a borehole and an exposure of permafrost indicate that relaxation time is less ambiguous in detecting ground ice in warm permafrost than conventional methods such as electrical resistivity tomography.

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)0.018
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.211
Threshold uncertainty score0.706

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0200.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2110.161

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.334 · 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
GenreCommentary

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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArctic and Russian Policy Studies→French-language works237,207→