Towards a TTOP ground temperature model for mountainous terrain in central‐eastern Norway
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The lack of simple mountain permafrost distribution models taking snow depth and site‐specific factors into consideration led us to test the regional Canadian temperature at the top of the permafrost or at the bottom of the seasonally frozen layer (TTOP)‐model in mountain terrain in central‐eastern Norway. The TTOP‐model uses seasonal n‐factors ( nt and nf ) and air temperature to model the mean annual ground‐surface temperature (MAGST), and a ratio of thawed to frozen thermal conductivity to model the average TTOP. This study presents 28 and 36 values of nt and nf , respectively. The potential incoming solar radiation, derived in a Geographical Information System (GIS), was used to parameterise nt , and average snow depth was used to parameterise nf . Due to limited information on the subsurface component of the model, only MAGST was modelled. The model was run for the 1961–90 normal period, the Little Ice Age and the year 2050. The model was evaluated against existing model predictions based on bottom temperature of winter snow (BTS) and geophysical soundings. Finally, critical values of snow depth, potential incoming solar radiation and thermal conductivity ratio that constrain negative MAGST and thus permafrost were determined. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it