MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078331628 · doi:10.14430/arctic3332

Permafrost and Peatland Evolution in the Northern Hudson Bay Lowland, Manitoba

2010· article· en· W2078331628 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
L D Dyke, W E Sladen

Bibliographic record

VenueARCTIC · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeatPermafrostPlateau (mathematics)BogGeologyBayPhysical geographyHydrology (agriculture)WetlandOceanographyEcologyGeographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The northern Hudson Bay lowland includes the largest area of frozen peat plateau bog in Canada. Polar bear denning habitat, caribou forage, carbon storage, and wetland drainage control provided by peat plateaus will be affected if post-Little Ice Age warming continues. Mapping and thermal modeling of frozen peat plateau stability indicate that permafrost peatlands are stable at a mean annual air temperature as warm as -3.5˚C. In the peat plateaus of the northern lowland, permafrost can be absent at the peat plateau margins where peat plateaus border fens or lakes. Here, insulating snow accumulations permit thawed conditions at mean annual air temperatures colder than -3.5˚C. Continued warming will result in expansion of thawed zones, subsidence at plateau margins, and even collapse of plateau surfaces, resulting in conversion to fen. This process has already occurred across north-central Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta since the end of the Little Ice Age, and there are signs that it is extending into the northern Hudson Bay lowland. Wave erosion of subsiding plateau borders at lake shorelines is also resulting in loss of peat plateau bog.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 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

Citations43
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueARCTICSame topicClimate change and permafrostFrench-language works237,207