MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1541729404 · doi:10.7202/004804ar

Glaciolacustrine sediments and Neoglacial history of the Chephren Lake basin, Banff National Park, Alberta

2002· article· en· W1541729404 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Randy W. Dirszowsky, Joseph R. Desloges

Bibliographic record

VenueGéographie physique et Quaternaire · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsCoringGeologySedimentary depositional environmentSedimentGlacierFaciesSedimentationGeomorphologyGeochemistryPhysical geographyStructural basinGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modern and historical sedimentation in Chephren Lake are examined in order to assess the relations between glacier activity, sediment production, and the lacustrine depositional record. Bottom sediment data and lake morphology indicate that sediments in the distal part of the lake primarily settled from suspension and that glaciers are the most important source. A 4.3 m core obtained from the distal sediments reveals that accumulation of fine, glacially-derived material has increased since at least 2 420 BP. Simple geochemical indicators reflect this and support regional evidence for progressive (though punctuated) climate deterioration through the Neoglacial period. Distinct rhythmite sequences (especially beginning ca. 3 460, 2 330, 1 470 and 530 BP) are thought to represent minor glacier retreats which help define separate phases of Neoglacial advance identified by previous workers. In contrast, increasing slope stability indicated by a reduction in graded sand and clast facies may be specific to slopes overlooking the coring site.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations17
Published2002
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGéographie physique et QuaternaireSame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207