Sculpted Bedrock Forms along the Niagara Escarpment, Niagara Peninsula, Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assemblages of subglacial sculpted bedrock forms (p-forms; Dahl, 1965) are identified on resistant units of the Niagara Escarpment in the Niagara Peninsula, and on the Onondaga Escarpment. The scale of the features is much larger than previously recorded for bedrock glacial features in the Peninsula (Feenstra, 1981) and we suggest that there is a continuous spectrum of forms from small obstacle marks with dimensions of a few centimetres, through ridges and furrows measured in tens of metres, to promontories on the order of kilometres. Such assemblages comprise fluted surfaces with a consistent orientation between N40E and N45E, and which show very little variation within a site. Mapping the features has increased our awareness of their extent, and of the problems they pose for mechanisms proposed to explain them. The morphometry of the forms is similar to that described elsewhere, and the irregular edge of the Niagara Escarpment to oncoming flows is thought to be responsible for the prominent features described. The apparent removal of substantial bedrock blocks implies flow velocity well in excess of 3 m/s. Therefore the sculpting of the forms is attributed to fast flowing subglacial meltwater which may have had a discharge of the magnitude of 2.1 x 106 cumecs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".