MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1662505674

Climatic Implications of the Mechanical Collapse of the Laurentide Ice Sheet

2008· article· en· W1662505674 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
S. D. Birkel, P. O. Koons, George H. Denton, Thomas J.R. Hughes, J. L. Fastook

Bibliographic record

VenueAGU Fall Meeting Abstracts · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeglaciationIce sheetGeologyGlacial periodIce-sheet modelHolocenePost-glacial reboundOceanographyBayLast Glacial MaximumGreenland ice sheetClimatologyWisconsin glaciationIce corePhysical geographyPaleontologyIce streamSea iceCryosphereGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although it is well-established that the Laurentide Ice Sheet collapsed over Hudson Bay ca. 8500 C yrs bp, the role of climate in this event remains ambiguous. We use a finiteelement glaciological model to test the hypothesis that the ice sheet would have survived throughout the Holocene via mass-balance feedbacks if its marine-based core had not disintegrated mechanically. Experiments that incorporate a parameterization of the Weertman (1974) marine instability mechanism show a complete Laurentide deglaciation in good accord with geologic data. When the instability is suppressed, the ice sheet contracts from its late Wisconsin maximum, but then stabilizes over Hudson Bay where it remains for the duration of the Holocene. The latter simulation uses a mass-balance scheme based on NCEP2 Reanalysis data; thus, ice-sheet changes are driven by modern environmental conditions. Our results place emphasis on the role of glacio-isostatic feedbacks in glacial terminations. Moreover, the possibility that the Laurentide Ice Sheet could still exist over Canada raises important questions about what glacial cycles are.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAGU Fall Meeting AbstractsSame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207