MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022461319 · doi:10.3189/002214310793146278

Elevation changes (1949–1995) of Black Rapids Glacier, Alaska, derived from a multi-baseline InSAR DEM and historical maps

2010· article· en· W2022461319 on OpenAlexaff
Dan H. Shugar, Bernhard Rabus, John J. Clague

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Glaciology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersMinistry of Economy, Trade and Industry
KeywordsGeologyDigital elevation modelGlacierElevation (ballistics)SurgeInterferometric synthetic aperture radarTributaryGeodesyGeomorphologyRemote sensingSynthetic aperture radarCartographyGeographyGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We have constructed a new digital elevation model (DEM) of the 1995 surface of Black Rapids Glacier, a surge-type glacier in the central Alaska Range, using ERS-1/-2 repeat-pass interferometry. We isolated the topographic phase from three interferograms with contrasting perpendicular baselines. Numerous phase-unwrapping errors caused by areas of poor coherence were corrected in all three interferograms, using a novel, iterative, semi-automated approach that capitalizes on the multi-baseline nature of the dataset. Comparison of our DEM with a 1949 US Geological Survey DEM and with 1973–95 ground survey data shows the gradual return of Black Rapids Glacier to a pre-surge hypsometry following a surge in 1936/37. Maximum elevation changes along the glacier center line in the ablation and accumulation areas are, respectively, −249 and +63 m (−5.4 and +1.4 m a −1 ). Maximum elevation changes of survey points at nearby locations are −4.9 m a −1 (1975–84) and +0.5 m a −1 (1975–85). Center-line thickening of +62 m between 1949 and 1995 (+1.4 m a −1 ), just above the Loket tributary in the upper part of the ablation zone, indicates dynamic thickening following the 1936/37 surge.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of GlaciologySame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207