MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W13938085

Using Climate Models to Evaluate Mechanisms of Glacial Inception

2001· article· en· W13938085 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueNASA Technical Reports Server (NASA) · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnowIce sheetSnowmeltGlacial periodGlacierMeltwaterGeologyNorthern HemisphereGreenland ice sheetClimatologyPhysical geographyEnvironmental scienceGeographyGeomorphology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The initiation and subsequent growth of an ice sheet or large glacier is based on two primary factors: 1. Most fundamentally, a region must exist with a positive net snow accumulation, that is, cold season snowfall exceeds warm season snowmelt. Because snow can melt very rapidly, in a practical sense this probably means that little or no snow melt should occur in the warm season (mountain glaciers being one possible exception). 2. When sufficient ice builds in a region with a positive net snow accumulation, the ice will flow into adjoining regions with a negative mass balance. Feedbacks can also then arise between the emerging ice sheet and the overall climate, which, among other effects, may cause the mass balance in that region to turn positive. A key question is the relative importance of these two factors. In particular, is it possible for a large lowland region to experience a positive mass balance, such that the ice sheet can arise largely 'in-situ'? Or instead are uplands necessary, such that essentially mountain glaciers form first, and then, under the right conditions, grow and coalesce, eventually spreading out into the lowlands? This is probably the single most fundamental question to be addressed in the modeling of glacial inception. Other key questions then focus on how the (upland or low-land) positive mass balance is obtained at some times, but not others (the ice sheets are not continuously present). For Northern Hemisphere ice sheets in particular, what climatic conditions can lead to abundant winter snowfall in the Canadian Arctic and northern Labrador in conjunction with cool summertime conditions? Are both required, or will cool summer conditions alone suffice? Conversely, are a few years of abnormally heavy snowfall all that is required to trigger glacial inception? A major need at present is for carefully constructed climate model studies aimed at addressing these questions. A successful strategy will almost certainly require more than just a global model; while the global climate model might be necessary to properly simulate large-scale forcing, such models have insufficient spatial resolution to adequately address the roles of topography and the nature of the land surface. Necessary also is the use of a high-resolution regional climate model (in conjunction with a global model). Possible forcing mechanisms of Pleistocene ice ages are well known (e.g., orbital forcing; CO2 fluctuations) but we must understand and be able to successfully model the actual processes involved in glacial inception before we can fully understand the true roles played by these forcing mechanisms.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.272
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.209 · 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