MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049949203 · doi:10.3189/002214308785837084

Is the high-elevation region of Devon Ice Cap thickening?

2008· article· en· W2049949203 on OpenAlexafffundabout
William Colgan, James Davis, Martin Sharp

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Glaciology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaArcticNet
KeywordsGeologyOutflowThickeningThinningGlacierDrainage basinIce streamGeomorphologyPhysical geographyClimatologyOceanographySea iceCryosphereGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Devon Ice Cap, Nunavut, Canada, has been losing mass since at least 1960. Laser-altimetry surveys, however, suggest that the high-elevation region (>1200 m) of the ice cap thickened between 1995 and 2000, perhaps because of anomalously high accumulation rates during this period. We derive an independent estimate of thickness change in this region by comparing ∼40 year mean annual net accumulation rates to mean specific outflow rates for 11 drainage basins. The area-averaged rate of thickness change across the whole region is within error of zero (0.01 ± 0.12 m w.e. a −1 ), but two drainage basins in the northwest are thickening significantly, and two basins in the south are thinning significantly. The laser-altimetry observations are biased towards the drainage basins where we find thickening. Recent changes in the rate of accumulation or the rate of firnification cannot explain the observed thickening, but decreased ice outflow, due to the penetration of Neoglacial cooling to, and subsequent stiffening of, the basal ice, may provide an explanation. Thinning in the south may result from increased ice outflow from basins in which fast flow and basal sliding extend above 1200 m.

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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.347

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations18
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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