Comparisons between macro‐ and microfabrics in a pebble‐rich, sandy till deposited by the Cordilleran Ice Sheet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is standard practice to measure particle fabrics in glacial studies to infer palaeo‐ice flow directions and processes of till formation but few studies examine the relationships between particle fabrics at different (i.e. the macro‐ and micro‐) scales. This knowledge is critical to inform the utility of the methods and limitations of the associated interpretations. Micro‐ (sand grain) and macro‐ (pebble) fabrics of pebble‐rich, sandy subglacial till (Kamloops Lake till) deposited by the Cordilleran Ice Sheet, south‐central British Columbia, were compared to assess their similarities and differences, and therefore their utility for understanding subglacial processes. Before comparisons were made, the data were tested for robustness by assessing various controls (e.g. sampling face orientation, number of particles measured, statistical variation resulting from sampling effects, particle shape, size and concentration) on particle fabrics. A new method of microfabric analysis was applied that involves the identification and delineation of distinct clusters of similarly orientated sand grains in order to compare them with macrofabrics and inferred ice‐flow directions. The results show that microfabrics, on their own, are an unreliable indicator of ice‐flow direction in Kamloops Lake till in the study area and should not be used as a substitute for macrofabric data, as they probably record late‐stage microscale strain patterns and pore‐water flow in addition to till deposition and deformation by overriding ice. We suspect that this would also be the case for coarse‐grained till elsewhere. Our findings suggest that till microfabric interpretations should always be made after assessing corresponding macrofabric data alongside sedimentological and structural observations.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".