Re‐dating the moraines at skálafellsjökull and heinabergsjökull using different lichenometric methods: implications for the timing of the icelandic little ice age maximum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractLittle Ice Age (LIA) moraines along the margins of Skálafellsjökull and Heinabergsjökull, two neighbouring outlet glaciers flowing from the Vatnajökull ice‐cap, have been re‐dated to test the reliability of different lichenometric approaches. During 2003, 12 000 lichens were measured on 40 moraine fragments at Skálafellsjökull and Heinabergsjökull to provide surface age proxies. The results are revealing. Depending on the chosen method of analysis, Skálafellsjökull either reached its LIA maximum in the early 19th century (population gradient) or the late 19th century (average of five largest lichens), whereas the LIA maximum of Heinabergsjökull occurred by the mid‐19th century (population gradient) or late‐19th century (average of 5 largest lichens). Discrepancies (c. 80 years for Skálafellsjökull and c. 40 years for Heinabergsjökull) suggest that the previously cited AD 1887 LIA maxima for both glaciers should be reassessed. Dates predicted by the lichen population gradient method appear to be the most appropriate, as mounting evidence from other geochronological reconstructions and sea‐ice records throughout Iceland tends to support an earlier LIA glacier maximum (late 18th to mid‐19th century) and probably reflects changes in the North Atlantic Oscillation. These revised chronologies shed further light on the precise timing of the Icelandic LIA glacier maximum, whilst improving our understanding of glacier‐climate interactions in the North Atlantic.Key words: IcelandLittle Ice Ageglacier fluctuationslichenometrygeomorphology
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".