MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1608573363 · doi:10.7202/032605ar

Objective Reconstructions of the Late Wisconsinan Laurentide Ice Sheet and the Significance of Deformable Beds

2007· article· en· W1608573363 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David Fisher, Niels Reeh, K. Langley

Bibliographic record

VenueGéographie physique et Quaternaire · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyIce sheetIce streamBayYield (engineering)GeomorphologyFlow (mathematics)Sea iceGeometryOceanographyCryosphereMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A three dimensional steady state plastic ice model; the present surface topography (on a 50 km grid); a recent concensus of the Late Wisconsinan maximum margin (PREST, 1984); and a simple map of ice yield stress are used to model the Laurentide Ice Sheet. A multi-domed, asymmetric reconstruction is computed without prior assumptions about flow lines. The effects of possible deforming beds are modelled by using the very low yield stress values suggested by MATHEWS (1974). Because of low yield stress (deforming beds) the model generates thin ice on the Prairies, Great Lakes area and, in one case, over Hudson Bay. Introduction of low yield stress (deformabie) regions also produces low surface slopes and abrupt ice flow direction changes. In certain circumstances large ice streams are generated along the boundaries between normal yield stress (non-deformable beds) and low yield stress ice (deformabie beds). Computer models are discussed in reference to the geologically-based reconstructions of SHILTS (1980) and DYKE ef al. (1982).

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations176
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGéographie physique et QuaternaireSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207