MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1517433839 · doi:10.1029/2003gl019088

A coupled sheet‐conduit mechanism for jökulhlaup propagation

2004· article· en· W1517433839 on OpenAlexafffund
Gwenn E. Flowers, Helgi Björnsson, Finnur Pálsson, Garry K. C. Clarke

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEuropean CommissionHáskóli ÍslandsLandsvirkjunNational Science Foundation
KeywordsElectrical conduitFlood mythGeologyGlacierHydrology (agriculture)GeomorphologyGreenland ice sheetArchaeologyGeotechnical engineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The largest glacier outburst flood (jökulhlaup) ever recorded in Iceland occurred in 1996 and came from subglacial lake Grímsvötn in Vatnajökull ice cap. Among other noteworthy features, this flood was characterized by an unprecedentedly high lake level prior to flood initiation, extremely rapid linear rise in lake discharge, delay between the onset of lake drainage and floodwater arrival at the glacier terminus, formation of short‐lived supraglacial fountains, and initially unchannelized outbursts of floodwater at the terminus. Observations suggest that the 1996 flood propagation mechanism was fundamentally different than that of previously observed floods from Grímsvötn. We advance a new model whereby floodwater initially propagates in a turbulent subglacial sheet, which feeds a nascent system of conduits. This model is able to explain key observations made of the 1996 jökulhlaup and may shed light on other outburst floods that do not conform to the standard model.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.611
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations112
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207