MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1511349677 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511535628.014

Arctic glaciers and ground-penetrating radar. Case study: Stagnation Glacier, Bylot Island, Canada

2008· book-chapter· en· W1511349677 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tristram Irvine‐Fynn, Brian J. Moorman

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2008
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlacierGeologyGlacier mass balanceArcticGround-penetrating radarGlacier morphologyTidewater glacier cycleClimatologyPhysical geographyCirque glacierRadarMeteorologyOceanographyGeographyGeomorphologyCryosphereIce streamArctic ice packSea iceAntarctic sea iceEngineeringAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction This case study presents results from multiple ground-penetrating radar (GPR) surveys conducted over a single ablation season at a polythermal glacier in the Canadian Arctic. Recent advances in both equipment functionality and data analysis have allowed researchers to examine notions of spatial variation in subsurface conditions, yet to date the full potential of the geophysical tool has not been exploited. A total of 30 km of radar profile data were collected illustrating how seasonal hydrothermal development can be observed in glaciers, including the appearance and disappearance of hydrological features. However, this research exemplified issues that should be borne in mind when undertaking glacier-based GPR, particularly focusing on resolution, interpolation, increasing noise and short-term temporal variability in glacier ice conditions. Over the past 50 years, radio-echo sounding (RES) and GPR have been increasingly employed on glaciers to determine a number of geometric and structural conditions. Reflection of a proportion of the impulse wave occurs where there is an abrupt, subsurface transition in dielectric constant (κ). The stark contrast between air (κ = 1), water (κ = 80), sediment (κ ≈ 25) and ice (κ ≈ 3.5) enables the reconstruction of subsurface structures from geophysical surveys. RES was initially focused upon the determination of ice thickness and thus bed topography for ice sheets (e.g. Evans 1963, Robin et al. 1969, Davis et al. 1973, Bentley et al. 1979, Hodge et al. 1990).

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.179 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicGeophysical Methods and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207