MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7096926596

Geography 477: Field Studies in Physical Geography

2007· article· en· W7096926596 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNational parkTerrainSnowGlacierRecreationDebrisSnowpack
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Glacier National Park, located in southeastern British Columbia, has been used for recreational purposes for over a century. Numerous trails in the park are used year round for hiking or backcountry skiing in the winter. The risks associated with the use of these trails ranges from bear encounters to triggering an avalanche. As in many mountainous regions, a high avalanche risk exists in the park during the winter due to the steep, rugged terrain and snow pack conditions. Along the Trans Canada Highway corridor through the park, avalanche activity is controlled and avalanche warning bulletins for the general area are released when necessary to minimize hazards. General avalanche information for the region is well documented; however specific information regarding the frequency of avalanches on some main trails is unavailable. In order to gain an understanding of the frequency of high magnitude avalanches on the popular Asulkan Valley Trail, dendrochronolgy was used to determine the ages of trees that were damaged by avalanches. Base cores were taken to determine the maximum age of trees on the perimeter of the avalanche path and scars were sampled to attempt to date avalanche events that damaged preexisting trees. While results are

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.241
Threshold uncertainty score0.479

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.008
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.247 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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