MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7105734478 · doi:10.24400/527896/a03-2016.1856

Multi-altimeter observations of the Yukon and Copper Rivers in Alaska: Assessment of the determination of river discharge within these complex river systems

2016· article· W7105734478 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCentre National d’Etudes Spatiales · 2016
Typearticle
Language
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDischargeTundraDrainage basinFlood mythHydrology (agriculture)Elevation (ballistics)Main river

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Both radar and laser altimetry can be utilized to monitor both water level variations and channel surface gradients for the largest river systems around the world. Here, we focus on the Yukon and Copper Rivers in Alaska. Despite their extent and complexity, few US and Canadian gauges exist across the basins. This hampers modelling and basin dynamics efforts, particularly affecting flood predictions and fisheries analysis. Both conventional (Jason-2, ENVISAT, SARAL, Jason-3) and Delay-Doppler (CRYOSAT-2, Sentinel-3A) radar altimetry, and laser altimetry (ICESat-1), offers spatially and temporally varying measurements, and multiple data sets allow for cross-validations. Innovative fully-focused SAR data processing techniques also offer improved along-track spatial resolution. Here, we examine the performance of the various instruments and techniques with a focus on river reach acquisition and improved elevation accuracy. We also discuss the merits of combining the data sets and look to their application with respect to i) the determination of river discharge and ii) isolating contributions to discharge from glacial and tundra melt waters.

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 score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.153

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.234 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCentre National d’Etudes SpatialesSame topicFlood Risk Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207