Felsenmeer persistence under non-erosive ice in the Torngat and Kaumajet mountains, Quebec and Labrador, as determined by soil weathering and cosmogenic nuclide exposure dating
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soil analyses and terrestrial cosmogenic nuclide exposure dating are combined and a conceptual model proposed to explain altitudinal weathering contrasts in high-latitude highlands. We show that summits in the Torngat and Kaumajet mountains were covered by ice during the Last Glacial Maximum, and that their felsenmeer cover probably survived multiple glaciation events. For similar lithologies, soils on felsenmeer covered summits are signigicantly more weathered than those below the felsenmeer limit, displaying higher concentrations of crystalline iron, amorphous aluminium, and silicium extracted with oxalate. Secondary minerals such as gibbsite and kaolinite occur in felsenmeer soils, whereas those formed in till lacked these secondary minerals.10Be and26Al exposure ages for nine of ten samples, from high-elevation tors and autochthonous felsenmeer blocks, range from 73 ± 6 to 157 ± 15 ka. By contrast, ages of 11.4 ± 1.0 and 11.7 ± 1.0 ka are measured for bedrock in the much lower Saglek zone, indicating extensive (>3 m) glacial erosion of this zone during Late Wisconsinan glaciation.26Al/10Be ratios demonstrate that exposure of the high-elevation surfaces was interrupted during at least one cosmic ray shielding event by either ice or till cover. In either case, Late Wisconsinan glaciers could not have extensively eroded these surfaces. Five erratics dated above the Saglek zone, including one in the felsenmeer zone, have exposure ages ranging from 11.6 ± 1.0 to 13.6 ± 0.7 ka. This indicates that valley and high-elevation ice persisted through the Younger Dryas Chron and provides further evidence that the highlands were not nunataks during the Late Wisconsinan period.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".