Criteria to Distinguish Between Periglacial, Proglacial and Paraglacial Environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Criteria to Distinguish Between Periglacial, Proglacial and Paraglacial Environments Clarification of the differences between the terms periglacial, proglacial and paraglacial is based on consideration of their conventional definitions, and noting that the term "periglacial" is a function of process, "proglacial" is a function of location and "paraglacial" is a function of degree and mode of recovery from the disturbance of continental glaciation. Periglacial and proglacial environments are commonly viewed as being adjusted to contemporary process, though important questions have been raised about relict periglacial landscapes in this regard. Paraglacial environments are explicitly out of adjustment with contemporary process and retain in their configuration a glacial signature. All three concepts are seen to be essential to comprehensive understanding of glaciated environments. It is a nested set of concepts which overlap in the field but none of the terms is redundant. Criteria for differentiation of these cold environment descriptors are proposed.
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 | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".