Does Lozinski's periglacial realm exist today? A discussion relevant to modern usage of the term ?periglacial?
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
The Pleistocene periglacial environment identified by Walery Lozinski was cold, mountainous, proglacial (i.e. ice-marginal), sparsely vegetated, and mid-latitude in nature. These conditions represent a specific and limiting type of periglacial environment not necessarily typical of the vast majority of present-day periglacial environments. While this environment was present in many areas during the Pleistocene, modern-day analogues are not easily recognized. The term ‘periglacial’ should be regarded as synonymous with ‘cold, non-glacial’. It should be applied to environments in which frost-related processes and/or permafrost are either dominant or characteristic. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. L'environnement périglaciaire identifié par Walery Lozinski était de type froid, montagneux, proglaciaire (c'est à dire en marge d'un glacier), avec une couverture végétale clairsemée et de moyenne latitude. Ces conditions représentent un type spécifique et limité d'environnement périglaciaire pas nécessairement typique de la grande majorité des environnements périglaciaires actuels. Alors que cet environnement existait en de nombreux endroits pendant le Pléistocène, des analogues actuels ne sont pas facilement identifiés. Le terme ‘périglaciaire’ devrait être considéré comme synonyme de ‘froid, non glaciaire’. Il devrait être appliqué à des environnements dans lesquels les processus en relation avec le gel et/ou le pergelisol sont, soit dominants, soit caractéristiques. Copyright © 2000 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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