MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7099366037

and LiDAR Surveys of the Bay of Fundy, Canada Integration of Multibeam Bathymetry and LiDAR Surveys of

2014· article· en· W7099366037 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicWood and Agarwood Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBathymetryBayLidarBathymetric chartContext (archaeology)HydrographyHydrographic surveySeafloor spreading
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canadian vessels equipped with multibeam bathymetry systems are in high demand by the Canadian Hydrographic Service (CHS) and by researchers from the Geological Survey of Canada (GSC). For several years, survey time for geological mapping was allocated in relatively small blocks of 10-20 days to provide as many applicants as possible the opportunity to collect multibeam bathymetry data. The resulting small-area surveys provided tantalizing glimpses of the wide diversity of the character of the seafloor but did not provide the regional context required for a full understanding of the features discovered. In 2006, the GSC, in conjunction with CHS and several universities, commenced a three year program to map the Bay of Fundy on the east coast of Canada. The Bay of Fundy has the largest recorded tides in the world, with a maximum range of about 17 metres at the head of the bay. Tidal current velocities that exceed 4.5 m s-1 in restricted narrow passages at various points in the bay could be harnessed for electrical power generation. To date about 10,000 km2 of multibeam bathymetry have been collected in the bay. Sub-bottom profiler data were collected simultaneously to provide information on the character and thickness of the sediments on the sea

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 topicWood and Agarwood ResearchFrench-language works237,207