MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6967065874 · doi:10.5063/f1d798p8

Lakes of Alaska with subsetting by watershed and SASAP region

2018· dataset· en· W6967065874 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUC Santa Barbara · 2018
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWatershedHydrology (agriculture)Joint (building)Drainage basinWatershed areaEuropean commissionSatellite

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lakes of Alaska were analyzed by watershed and region of Alaska for the State of Alaska Salmon and People (SASAP) project. 188 watersheds and thirteen regions were assessed for number of intersecting lakes, area covered by lakes, and other lakes statistics as described in "Lake_Polygons.ipynb" in this package. Lakes data is based on the River Analysis Project (RAP) dataset as outlined in "A Riverscape Analysis Tool Developed to Assist Wild Salmon Conservation Across the North Pacific Rim" by Whited, D. C., J. S. Kimball, J. A. Lucotch, N. K. Maumenee, H. Wu, S. D. Chilcote, and J. A. Stanford (2012). Lakes polygons in the RAP dataset were provided directly by the authors (Waterbody_AK_RAP.zip) and are based on 1990s-era Landsat 4 and 5 satellite data, with methodology outlined in the publication above. More information on RAP can be found here: http://www.ntsg.umt.edu/rap/default.php. Regions are determined by the SASAP project and watersheds are based on HUC8 definitions from the International Joint Commission and sub-sub-drainages from the Canadian National Hydro Network.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.013

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUC Santa BarbaraFrench-language works237,207