Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The earliest observations upon cold, non‐glacial processes and phenomena were made in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries by the European explorers of the vast sub‐arctic regions of North America and Eurasia. The initial beginnings of periglacial geomorphology can be traced to Lozinski and the participants of the XI International Geological Congress excursion to Spitzbergen in 1910–11. The real growth in periglacial geomorphology occurred in the two decades after the Second World War. By the mid‐1960s periglacial geomorphology was recognized as a descriptive branch of climatic geomorphology. There were two broad sub‐categories: (i) Pleistocene and Quaternary studies dealing largely with the mid‐latitudes, and (ii) present‐day process studies conducted in the sub‐arctic and arctic regions of North America and Scandinavia. Permafrost studies were being conducted in relative isolation in North America and the Soviet Union, not only to each other, but also to mainstream periglacial geomorphology. The merging of all these interests, and the development of quantitative, process‐oriented studies aimed at understanding periglacial landforms did not come about for several more decades. Copyright © 2003 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".