MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075357311 · doi:10.1002/hyp.309

Geochemical weathering at the bed of Haut Glacier d'Arolla, Switzerland—a new model

2002· article· en· W2075357311 on OpenAlexaff
Martyn Tranter, Martin Sharp, H. R. Lamb, Giles H. Brown, Bryn Hubbard, Ian Willis

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrological Processes · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMine drainage and remediation techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeatheringDissolutionCarbonateGeologyAnoxic watersMineralogyGeochemistryDrainageEnvironmental chemistryHydrology (agriculture)Chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Waters were sampled from 17 boreholes at Haut Glacier d'Arolla during the 1993 and 1994 ablation seasons. Three types of concentrated subglacial water were identified, based on the relative proportions of Ca2+, HCO3− and SO42− to Si. Type A waters are the most solute rich and have the lowest relative proportion of Si. They are believed to form in hydrologically inefficient areas of a distributed drainage system. Most solute is obtained from coupled sulphide oxidation and carbonate dissolution (SO–CD). It is possible that there is a subglacial source of O2, perhaps from gas bubbles released during regelation, because the high SO42− levels found (up to 1200 µeq/L) are greater than could be achieved if sulphides are oxidized by oxygen in saturated water at 0 °C (c.414 µeq/L). A more likely alternative is that sulphide is oxidized by Fe3+ in anoxic environments. If this is the case, exchange reactions involving FeIII and FeII from silicates are possible. These have the potential to generate relatively high concentrations of HCO3− with respect to SO42−. Formation of secondary weathering products, such as clays, may explain the low Si concentrations of Type A waters. Type B waters were the most frequently sampled subglacial water. They are believed to be representative of waters flowing in more efficient parts of a distributed drainage system. Residence time and reaction kinetics help determine the solute composition of these waters. The initial water–rock reactions are carbonate and silicate hydrolysis, and there is exchange of divalent cations from solution for monovalent cations held on surface exchange sites. Hydrolysis is followed by SO–CD. The SO42− concentrations usually are <414 µeq/L, although some range up to 580 µeq/L, which suggests that elements of the distributed drainage system may become anoxic. Type C waters were the most dilute, yet they were very turbid. Their chemical composition is characterized by low SO42− : HCO3− ratios and high pH. Type C waters were usually artefacts of the borehole chemical weathering environment. True Type C waters are believed to flow through sulphide‐poor basal debris, particularly in the channel marginal zone. The composition of bulk runoff was most similar to diluted Type B waters at high discharge, and was similar to a mixture of Type B and C waters at lower discharge. These observations suggest that some supraglacial meltwaters input to the bed are stored temporarily in the channel marginal zone during rising discharge and are released during declining flow. Little of the subglacial chemical weathering we infer is associated with the sequestration of atmospheric CO2. The progression of reactions is from carbonate and silicate hydrolysis, through sulphide oxidation by first oxygen and then FeIII, which drives further carbonate and silicate weathering. A crude estimate of the ratio of carbonate to silicate weathering following hydrolysis is 4 : 1. We speculate that microbial oxidation of organic carbon also may occur. Both sulphide oxidation and microbial oxidation of organic carbon are likely to drive the bed towards suboxic conditions. Hence, we believe that subglacial chemical weathering does not sequester significant quantities of atmospheric CO2 and that one of the key controls on the rate and magnitude of solute acquisition is microbial activity, which catalyses the reduction of FeIII and the oxidation of FeS2. Copyright © 2002 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.183
Threshold uncertainty score0.363

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations290
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrological ProcessesSame topicMine drainage and remediation techniquesFrench-language works237,207