MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1944846275 · doi:10.1002/2015gl064106

The isotopic composition of the Laurentide Ice Sheet and fossil groundwater

2015· article· en· W1944846275 on OpenAlexaff
Grant Ferguson, Scott Jasechko

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIce sheetMeltwaterGeologyGroundwaterGreenland ice sheetGlacial periodIce-sheet modelPleistoceneHydrology (agriculture)Ice streamGeomorphologyCryosphereClimatologySea icePaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Stable isotopes have been used to study large‐scale changes in hydrology during the Pleistocene epoch. Many of these efforts have required an estimate of the δ 18 O value of runoff generated by melting ice sheets. There is no consensus on representative values. Here we examine δ 18 O values from fossil groundwater samples and isotope‐enabled general circulation models (GCMs) to better understand the isotopic composition of the Laurentide Ice Sheet (LIS). Groundwater δ 18 O values ranged from −12.5 to −25.3‰ and tended to increase southward. The δ 18 O precipitation values predicted by GCMs follow a similar trend but increase more steeply southward. The difference in groundwater and GCM output can be explained by invoking movement of glacial ice and meltwater, along with mixing within groundwater systems. Most groundwater δ 18 O values are higher than an average LIS δ 18 O value of −25.4 ± 2.5‰ calculated based on estimated ice sheet volumes and sea level 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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.265
Threshold uncertainty score0.766

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations54
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207