MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7095557624

Ice Thickness and Roughness Analysis on the Peace River

2015· article· en· W7095557624 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBackscatter (email)Sea ice thicknessSurface finishSea iceSnowGlaciologySurface roughnessPancake ice
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of the analysis was to indirectly infer ice thickness and strength information from RADARSAT-1 images with the hope of obtaining useful results to help manage freeze-up downstream of a hydroelectric facility. In the 2002 winter, three Fine Beam images were acquired on the Peace River, Alberta to measure temporal ice changes due to thermal ice growth over a five-week period. Ice thickness data were collected at two study sites concurrently with image acquisitions. The locations were selected to cover areas over and adjacent to gravel bars. To investigate whether freezing to the ground would affect the signal response; the backscatter values from the RADARSAT images were correlated to ice thickness data. In 2003 two Fine Beam images were acquired that were concurrent with ice cross-sectional surveys at eight locations. The objective was to measure spatial differences in the ice cover. Comparison between RADARSAT images and field data was made for ice between the shear lines at mid-channel. Backscatter values were compared with total ice thickness (i.e. solid ice and slush) and with sail heights. 1.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicResearch Data Management PracticesFrench-language works237,207