MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6948395901 · doi:10.5066/p9ny3uju

Ground conductivity measurements at selected National Wildlife Refuges, Montana and North Dakota, 2017-2018

2020· dataset· en· W6948395901 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUSGS DOI Tool Production Environment · 2020
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCell Image Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAerial surveySnowGlobal Positioning SystemDepth soundingDigital dataNoise (video)Ground truthData processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shallow subsurface electrical conductivity was mapped at selected U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service managed lands in northeast Montana and northwest North Dakota using the DUALEM421 electromagnetic sensor (Dualem, Inc., ON, Canada) in the winters of 2017 and 2018. Data were acquired by towing the DUALEM421 sensor on a sled behind an all-terrain vehicle or snow machine, with the sensor at a nominal height of 0.3 meters (m) above ground surface. Approximately 427 line-kilometers (km) of data were acquired over an area of nearly 26 square-kilometers. Data were manually edited to remove sensor dropouts, lag corrected for apparent offsets between recorded GPS location and data locations for each coil pair, and averaged to a sounding distance of 1m along the survey path; data were not decoupled from infrastructure noise sources (powerlines, pipelines, fences, etc.) or corrected for sensor pitch or roll. This data release contains raw and processed electromagnetic data. Digital data are described by the data dictionaries. Additional details regarding the processing steps are described in the metadata.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.238
Threshold uncertainty score0.474

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.007

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.215 · 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
GenreDataset

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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUSGS DOI Tool Production EnvironmentSame topicCell Image Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207