Configuration and Dynamics of the Laurentide Ice Sheet During the Late Wisconsin Maximum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prior to 1943 the Laurentide Ice Sheet was considered to have three major domes centered in Keewatin, Labrador, and Patricia (TYRRELL, 1898 a, b; 1913). FLINT (1943) argued that these centres were of only local and temporary importance and favoured a single-domed ice sheet. Despite the lack of supporting geological evidence, and despite the proposition of a Foxe Dome in the interim (IVES and ANDREWS, 1963), the single-dome concept was not seriously challenged until the late 1970's and, in fact, is still strenuously supported (HUGHES era/., 1977 ; DENTON and HUGHES, 1981). This paper extends and modifies recent conclusions that the Laurentide Ice Sheet had more than one dome at the Late Wisconsin maximum. We propose a model incorporating five domes (M'Clintock, Foxe, Labrador, Hudson, and (?) Caribou) based on the position of ice divides, ice flow patterns, drift composition, late-glacial features, postglacial isostatic recovery and free-air gravity anomalies. Our Labrador and Hudson domes closely correspond to Tyrrell's Labradorean and Patrician ice sheets; our Caribou and M'Clintock domes together with the Franklin Ice Complex over the Queen Elizabeth Islands north of the Laurentide Ice Sheet, correspond to Tyrrell's original Keewatin Ice Sheet. The style of glaciation of the Foxe Basin region was not known to Tyrrell, but our reconstruction of the Foxe Dome is in close agreement with the original proposal of Ives and Andrews. Like Tyrrell, our reconstruction is based on field evidence obtained through extensive mapping; the single dome model continues to be unsupported by geological data.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".