Late‐summer pack ice in the Canadian archipelago: Thickness observations from a ship in transit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A digital video camera was used to photograph ice blocks turned on edge by the passage of the icebreaker CCGS Des Groseilliers operating in the Canadian High Arctic in August 2002. Ice thickness was derived from photogrammetry to an accuracy of about 10%, with a possible negative bias of about 3%. Further (presumably negative) bias related to route selection is unknown. The average thickness of blocks measured during half‐hour intervals of observation varied between 0.35 and 0.70 m; the higher values are likely indicative of second‐year ice. The greatest thickness of any single block was less than 2 m. Histograms of thickness were nearly symmetric and approximately Gaussian. There is evidence to indicate that the scarcity of ridged ice reflects the ice conditions of the area and is not an artefact of the method. Based on ancillary wintertime data, the pack ice in open waters of the north‐eastern Archipelago thawed at about 0.02 m d–1 in the summer of 2002, about three times less rapidly than ice near the shore. Whereas coastal ice had vanished five weeks prior to our voyage, pack ice in Norwegian Bay, though thin, persisted until the end of September and became second‐year ice. The difference is likely a consequence of the different microclimate near land, particularly with respect to the time of onset of the thaw season.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".