MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050103961 · doi:10.3189/002214309790794896

The effects of meltwater percolation on the seasonal isotopic signals in an Arctic snowpack

2009· article· en· W2050103961 on OpenAlexafffund
Tara Moran, Shawn J. Marshall

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Glaciology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsFirnMeltwaterSnowpackSnowGeologyArcticSnowmeltIce coreMelt pondAtmospheric sciencesGeomorphologyClimatologyArctic ice packOceanographyAntarctic sea ice

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We investigate the evolution of snow temperature, water content, density and stable water isotopes of δ 18 O at four Arctic snow-pit sites during early-season melt, in order to understand the effects of melt on snowpack stratigraphies and seasonal isotopic signals. We relate isotopic changes observed at these sites to temperature reconstructions derived from a 33 year firn-core record drilled on the same icefield. Decreases in seasonal isotopic amplitudes observed at all but one snow-pit site coincide with the percolation of more enriched meltwater into the snowpack, suggesting that meltwater percolation is the dominant process causing isotopic redistribution in Arctic snowpacks during the melt season. The decrease in isotopic range was accompanied by increases in mean δ 18 O values at all snow-pit sites. Positive degree-day (PDD) calculations are used to relate the amount of melt observed at the low-elevation snow-pit sites to the firn-core site. Results based on PDD values suggest an average overestimation of 1.1°C in average annual temperature reconstructions from the firn-core site from 1967 to 2006, with the possibility of errors in excess of 3°C during high-melt years.

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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.163

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations30
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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