MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416852850 · doi:10.5194/tc-19-6355-2025

Monitoring Arctic permafrost – examining the contribution of volunteered geographic information to mapping ice-wedge polygons

2025· article· en· W4416852850 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Oliver Fritz, Sabrina Marx, Marlin M. Mueller, Christian Thiel, Josefine Lenz, Soraya Kaiser, Roxanne Frappier, Alexander Zipf, Moritz Langer

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œcryosphere · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolygon (computer graphics)PermafrostArcticCentroidGeographic information systemGeocodingThe arctic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. This study evaluates the potential of Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI) for mapping and monitoring ice-wedge polygons in Arctic permafrost regions through two case studies in Alaska and Canada. We developed and tested a web-based mapping application that enables volunteers to identify ice-wedge polygon centroids in high-resolution aerial imagery, with data collected from 105 contributors as part of organized mapping events. The volunteer-contributed data achieved completeness scores of 88.74 % and 70.81 % for the Cape Blossom (Alaska) and Blueberry Hills (Canada) study regions respectively, with median positional accuracies of 1.29 and 1.38 m (both validated against expert mapping data). Analysis shows that contributions from approximately five volunteers per polygon are sufficient to achieve reliable results. Using Voronoi diagrams derived from the crowd-sourced centroids, we successfully reconstructed ice-wedge polygon networks and extracted key geomorphological and hydrological parameters including polygon area, perimeter, and network topology. The results demonstrate that VGI can effectively support permafrost monitoring by enabling efficient mapping of ice-wedge polygons across large areas while maintaining high data quality standards.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œcryosphereSame topicClimate change and permafrostFrench-language works237,207