MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Lichenometric dating of little ice age glacier activity in the central british columbia coast mountains, canada

2012· article· en· W1577621041 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jill E. Harvey, Dan J. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueGeografiska Annaler Series A Physical Geography · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
KeywordsMoraineGlacierGeologyPhysical geographyLittle ice ageIce capsGlacier morphologyArchaeologyClimatologyGeomorphologyGeographyIce streamCryosphereSea ice

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ittle ce ge behaviour of glaciers in the central ritish olumbia oast ountains, anada, was described by conducting lichenometric surveys of hizocarpon spp. found on recently deposited moraines in the itimat and acific ranges. At attullo lacier in the southern itimat ange, surveys across four sets of nested lateral moraines describe advances prior to the late thirteenth century, 1550–1610, 1680–1710, and 1850 ad. In the onarch cefield area in the northern acific ange, ittle ce ge moraines stabilized prior to 1380–1430 ad, the mid‐seventeenth and mid‐eighteenth centuries, and in the mid‐nineteenth century. The timing of these moraine‐building episodes corresponds closely to the intervals of glacier expansion recorded in complementary studies in the region. These findings indicate that most glaciers in the region reached their maximum downvalley ittle ce ge extent prior to 1780 ad, and suggest that climate forcing likely contributed to regionally synchronous glacier fluctuations.

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)0.001
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations8
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeografiska Annaler Series A Physical GeographySame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207