MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7096823216

Annals of Glaciology 7 1985 © International Glaciological Society STRA TIGRAPHIC NOISE IN TIME SERIES DERIVED FROM ICE CORES

2014· article· en· W7096823216 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNoise (video)GlaciologySeries (stratigraphy)ArcticAmplitudeTime seriesSnowSea ice
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Because of snow drifting, two time series of any variable derived from two adjacent ice cores will differ considerably. The size and statistical nature of this noise element is discussed for two kinds of measured substance. A theory is developed and compared to data from Greenland and Canadian Arctic ice cores. In case I, the measured substance can diffuse and the seasonal cycle degrade with time and depth, e.g. 6 ( 180). In case 2, the measured substance cannot diffuse, e.g. microparticles. The case 2 time series contain drift noise proportional to that in the accumulation series. For accumulation series, the spectral power is concentrated at the high frequencies, i.e. is "blue". Such noise can be easily reduced by taking relatively short time averages. The noise in the case I time series, however, starts out "blue " but quickly diffuses to have a "red " character with significant power at longer wavelengths, and many decades of such series must be averaged to reduce the noise level. Because the seasonal amplitude of any given variable is an important input to the drift noise and because the seasonal amplitudes of some variable types are latitude-dependent, some sites have inherently less drift noise than others. I.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.202

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0600.013

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.244
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 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCryospheric studies and observations→French-language works237,207→